Flipping The Switch

THE COVENANT OF GRACE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

2012-02-12T21:46:00.000-06:00

From Adam to Abraham

Man had scarcely fallen into sin before God approached him with his overtures of grace. He promised Adam and Eve that he would send a mighty deliverer and redeemer. In Genesis 3:15 we have God's first revelation of the covenant of grace to man. God definitely promised man that there would be a conflict between Satan and the seed of the woman and that the seed of the woman would be victorious. "It [a descendant of Eve] shall bruise thy [Satan's] head, and thou [Satan] shalt bruise his [Christ's] heel." God manifested his grace here in two ways. First, he would make Adam and Eve enemies of Satan and therefore friends of God. Second, through the promised Redeemer God would break the power of Satan over men. When Christ died on Calvary's cross, Satan's power was broken. Wherever the gospel of the crucified One is preached with the blessing of the Spirit, Satan is powerless to enslave.

This covenant of grace to Adam gives us but a bare outline of God's plan of redemption. There is not revealed in this covenant all that we might like to know. It is rather general and indefinite. We might wish we knew just what kind of redeemer Adam and Eve expected. We might wish that we were told clearly the precise conditions that Adam and Eve had to fulfill before God regarded them as his friends once more. These details are not revealed. But of one thing we may be certain; God reveals elsewhere in his Word that "no man cometh unto the Father but by me [Christ]"; therefore, Adam and Eve must have trusted in the promised Deliverer for salvation, for otherwise they never could have become friends of God, reconciled to him.

From Abraham to Moses

The covenant of grace in the Old Testament comes to its clearest and fullest expression in God's covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 12:1-3; 17:1-14). This covenant may be summarized in the words of Genesis 17:7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." In this covenant God is more specific as to the blessings that he will give. In this covenant, too, faith suddenly becomes more prominent as the condition which man must meet if he is to receive the promised blessings.

The blessings that God promised Abraham in this covenant were both temporal and spiritual, earthly and heavenly, external and internal. Abraham's temporal or earthly blessings consisted in a "seed," a "land," and in the promise that he would be the father of "a great nation." These promises were partly fulfilled in the giving of Isaac as the son of Abraham's old age, in bringing Abraham to the land of Canaan, and in making Abraham the father of the mighty Hebrew nation. It would be a serious error, however, to maintain that these temporal blessings of Abraham stand in contrast to the spiritual blessings of salvation in Christ. Bound up in these very earthly blessings were heavenly blessings. While "in the land of promise, as a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles," Abraham looked beyond this earthly land "for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God," even the heavenly and eternal Jerusalem (see Heb. 11:9-10). What is more, the true Seed of Abraham through which all the families of the earth would be blessed was not the Hebrew nation but Christ. Paul, writing to the Galatians, said, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The blessings that God promised would come through the seed of Abraham were not essentially material blessings but the blessings of eternal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only were there heavenly and spiritual blessings bound up in the earthly and external blessings given to Abraham; at the very heart and center of God's covenant with Abraham was the promise of reconciliation and salvation. The most important element of God's Covenant with Abraham was the promise to "be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." This is the blessing without which all other blessings would be empty and worthless. God was at enmity with man because of man's rebellious unbelief and disobedience. God in his justice had placed all mankind under his holy curse. He had cut man off from himself. But now he will become reconciled to man and deal with him as a friend. "I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people" is the echo that reverberates through the Old Testament. He will restore man into his favor and fellowship once more. He will save men through his Son, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3:14). To that appointed Savior all the believers of the Old Testament looked for salvation and by that promised One they were saved. In the words of our Lord, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56).

There was one essential condition—and only one—that must be met if Abraham were to receive the promised temporal and spiritual blessings. Abraham must believe; he must have faith. This one condition Abraham met and by it laid hold upon the blessings of salvation in Christ. "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Gal. 3:8; Rom. 4:3). Abraham believed that God would keep his promises, and thus he was regarded as righteous in God's sight.

God gave an external sign to Abraham to keep Israel in remembrance of this covenant and to confirm all he had said. Under the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace all the male members of the covenant were to receive "the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11). Later, the sign of baptism as a seal of the new covenant of grace was to supplant the sign of circumcision (see Col. 2:11-12).

This glorious covenant of grace that God made with Abraham was never revoked. It was never supplanted by another covenant. God was to add to this covenant but never to subtract from it. God was to unfold the meaning of this covenant more fully but never to change it essentially.

From Moses to Christ

As the history of God's people progressed, God added to the covenant of grace the law. This law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai and occupies a prominent place throughout the entire Old Testament (see Ex. 19:16 through Leviticus). It should be made very clear that God did not do away with the covenant of grace when he gave the law. The law is not a substitute for grace. God did not intend that thenceforth man was to be saved by keeping the law. "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16). The law was added simply as a means of administering the covenant of grace more effectively. "The law was added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:30). These words of the apostle Paul make clear what the purpose of the law was. The purpose of the law was to increase Israel's sense of sin and thereby bring them to see their need of a Savior.

The laws by which the covenant of grace was administered from the time of Moses to the coming of Christ were of three different types. They were the ceremonial law, the civil law, and the moral law.

The ceremonial law, as set forth in the book of Leviticus, was composed of numerous symbols and types. A symbol is a material representation of some spiritual truth. A type is a symbol intended to foreshadow something that is to come in the future. The tabernacle was a perfect symbol and type of the work of Christ as the Mediator between God and man. The heart of the tabernacle was the Holy of Holies. Once a year on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled the blood of a goat upon the mercy seat to make atonement for the sins of the people of Israel. The high priest placed his hands on the head of another goat and confessed the sins of the people of Israel. The goat was then driven forth into the wilderness (symbolic of the taking away of their sins; cf. Lev. 16; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11). The epistle to the Hebrews makes it very plain that this ceremony on the Day of Atonement foreshadowed the entrance of Jesus, the great high priest, once for all "into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (Heb. 9:24; cf. 9:1ff.). Through Christ's sacrifice on the cross we come into the Holy of Holies of God's presence. These Old Testament ceremonies were done away with in Christ. They were but shadows of things to come. When Christ came, there was no longer any need for these types and shadows. He was the fulfillment of them. This is the main burden of the epistle to the Hebrews.

The civil law was that part of God's law that was to govern Israel as a nation and society. The civil law was the application of the moral law to the social and civil life of Israel. Israel was a theocracy (ruled by God). The laws of sanitation, for instance, were revealed by God and made binding on the people of Israel. These civil laws tended to emphasize the national, temporal, and external aspects of the covenant. God stood in covenant relation to Israel as a Jewish nation. Temporal or material blessings such as the promise of the land of Canaan are quite prominent. There is also an emphasis on external washings and observances. When Israel as a nation rejected their Messiah and the kingdom of God was offered to the Gentiles, Israel as a theocratic nation governed by the civil laws of Sinai was no more. Therefore, these civil laws are no longer binding, "further than the general equity thereof may require" (as stated by the Westminster divines; see also 1 Cor. 9:7-10).

There was one aspect of the law revealed at Mount Sinai that was never to pass away. That was the moral law summarized in the ten commandments. In the moral law is revealed man's duty to God and to his neighbor. The moral law has the same functions today that it did in the time of Moses. It is still God's means to convict men of their sin and to show them their need of a Savior. It still remains as a standard of conduct after we have accepted Christ as our Savior. Christ delivers men from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) but not from the moral obligation to keep the law as an expression of faith in and love for Christ. When a lawyer came to Jesus seeking eternal life, Jesus confronted him with a summary of the Ten Commandments to convict him of his sin (see Luke 10:25-28). Paul in writing to the Christians at Rome set forth the commandments of the Old Testament as the guide and standard for Christian conduct (see Rom. 3:31, 6:15, 13:9).

From www.opc.org

How is God's name profanely abused in hearing or reading his word ?

2012-02-11T13:32:00.017-06:00

The third use of the law – the law as a guide for Christian gratitude to God for his saving grace is one of those important strands of Reformed theology. Take this strand out of Reformed theology and you end up with legalism, antinomianism, and a host of other tragic errors. Christians should know the law of God, most definitely. But they should also know the uses of it: to show them their sin, driving them to Christ, and to show them how to thank Christ in faith-filled obedience. The Puritans and the old divines taught this concept. Today it is almost lost in Christian life and the pursuit of holiness. They understood that a right understanding, (empowered by the grace of God) of the Moral Law of God aids the believer in his sanctification.

In the book Marrow of Modern Divinity the writer discusses the Moral law of God and its use in the Christian life. Here is a conversation between Neophytus, a young Christian and Evangelista, a minister of the gospel. This small snippet of their conversation was convicting and edifying. In this part of the dialogue Evangelista is giving the negative aspects of the 3rd commandment. This is a small part of that greater discussion.

Neo. And how is God's name profanely abused in hearing or reading his word?

Evan. God's name is hereby abused, when we hear it or read it, and do not understand it.
(Acts 8: 30) ; and when we hear it only with the outward ears of our bodies, and not also with the inward ears of our heart and soul; and this we do when we read it or hear it with our hearts full of wandering thoughts, (Ezek. 33: 30) ; and we read it, or hear it with dull, drowsy, and sleepy spirits ; and when in hearing of it we rather conceive it to be the word of a mortal man that delivers it, than the word of the great God of heaven and earth, (1 Thess.2:13) and when we do not with our hearts believe every part and portion of that word which we read or hear, (Heb. 4: 2) ; and when we do not humbly and heartily subject ourselves to what we read or hear, (2 Kings 22:19 ; Isa. 62:2)

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
on the "third use of the Law"

Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,10 and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;11 neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.12

10 Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8,10-12
11 James 2:10,11
12 Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31

Paragraph 6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned,13 yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;14 together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the
perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.15

13 Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 8:1, 10:4
14 Rom. 3:20, 7:7, etc.
15 Rom. 6:12-14; 1 Pet. 3:8-13

Paragraph 7. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it,16 the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done17

16 Gal. 3:21
17 Ezek. 36:27

Over-Righteous?

2012-02-09T19:40:00.003-06:00

Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)
"Do not be over-righteous." Ecclesiastes 7:16

Some of our readers may be surprised to discover that there is such a statement as this in Holy Writ, and at first glance consider it an exhortation we do not need. Yet on second thought they should perceive that their hasty conclusion was wrong, for there can be nothing in the imperishable Word of God which is superfluous, and no precept which we can dispense with without suffering loss. Even in this day of abounding lawlessness, of rapidly increasing moral laxity, when there is such an urgent need for pressing the righteous claims of God upon one another, the Christian requires to give careful heed to this word: "Do not be over-righteous."

It is a question of sound interpretation, of rightly understanding the meaning and application of this Divine injunction. First, let us briefly point out what our text does not mean. "Do not be over-righteous." Those words have often been quoted in the past by empty professors against those children of God whose conscientiousness and piety condemned their looseness. They have said, "I do not feel that such carefulness and preciseness are required of us; you are altogether too punctilious over trifles: why make yourself and all whom you come into contact with, miserable? what need is there for so much denying of self, separation from the world, and acting differently from other people?" They argue, "Christ did everything for us which God requires of us." Anything which made real demands upon them, which called for the mortification of the flesh, for the laying aside of "every weight" which would hinder from running the race God has set before His people, they counted as "fanaticism," "puritanic," being "over-righteous." And their tribe is not extinct! But such is obviously a perversion of our text.

We cannot love God too much, nor keep His precepts too diligently. What, then, is the force of these words, "Do not be over-righteous"? First, let it be duly observed that our text occurs in the Old Testament. The Lord God knew the temper of the Jews, their proneness to lean upon their own works and trust in the sufficiency of them to secure their acceptance before Him; therefore did He place this word on record to warn them against indulging in the spirit of self-destruction, against pretending unto a greater righteousness than they actually had. In this very same chapter, only two or three verses later, He tells them plainly, "There is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not" (v. 20). Thus the righteousness of Another is absolutely indispensable if any sinner is to find acceptance with the thrice Holy God. Beware, then, of thinking more highly of yourself than you ought to think, and being proud in your own conceits. The need for such a word, and their utter disregard of it, was plainly evidenced by the self-righteous Pharisees of Christ's day, who trusted in their own performances and despised and rejected Him.

But the truly regenerated soul has been delivered from this fatal tendency of the unrenewed heart. He has been supernaturally enlightened and convicted by the Spirit of Truth. He has been shown how impossible it is for him to meet the high requirements of God, and has been made to feel that his best doings are but "filthy rags" in God's sight. What, then, is the legitimate application of this exhortation unto himself: "Do not be over-righteous"?

Answer: by assuming duties to which God has not called us, by undertaking austerities which God has not enjoined. We read of "the commandments and doctrines of men" with their "touch not, taste not, handle not" (Col. 2:21, 22), and to be brought under bondage to them, is being "righteous over much," for it is going beyond what God Himself has prescribed for us. The Jewish Rabbies and scribes invented a vast number of traditions and ceremonies over and above what God commanded, supposing that by observing the same they were holier than others; and even condemned the Lord Jesus because He declined to observe their rules: see Mark 7:2, 5; and let it be duly observed that Christ and His disciples refused to heed their scruples, though He knew they would be "offended" or hurt!

The same principle is operative among the poor Papists, with their invention of religious works: the "celibacy" of their "priests," their "Lenten fasts" etc. are examples. Nor is the same evil absent among Protestants: many of them have invented laws and rules, demanding that Christians totally abstain from some of the "all things" which God has given us richly "to enjoy" (1 Tim. 6:17), though not to abuse; compliance therewith is being "over-righteous!"

"Do not be over-righteous." This word has a manifold application to Christians today. Be not too rigorous in standing up for your "rights," but "in love serve one another." Refuse not to help the animal out of the pit, simply because he falls into one on the Sabbath day! Let your zeal in "service" be regulated by the rules of Holy Writ. Insist not upon your full "pound of flesh": having received mercy of God, exercise mercy towards others. Beware of paying more attention to the outward forms of religion than to the cultivation of the heart. "There may be overdoing in well doing" (Matthew Henry): some have wrecked their constitutions by over-study, over-fasting, and by refusing lawful means. Nothing is required of us but what God has enjoined in His Word

Evangelical Repentance a Consequence of Faith?

2012-02-07T19:10:00.002-06:00

Thomas Boston says the following question from Nomista the legalist [grounded on his idea that Neophytus had no warrant to believe, unless he had truly repented] “supposes that there is a kind of repentance, humiliation, sorrow for sin, and turning from it, which goes before faith…”

…let’s join the discussion on repentance, already in progress…

Nom. Why, I conceive that repentance consists in a man’s humbling himself before God, and sorrowing and grieving for offending him by his sins, and in turning from them all to the Lord.

Evan. And would you have a man to do all this truly before he come to Christ by believing?

Nom. Yea, indeed, I think it is very meet he should.

Evan. Why, then, I tell you truly, you would have him to do that which is impossible.

For, first of all godly humiliation, in true penitents, proceeds from the love of God their good Father, and so from the hatred of that sin which has displeased him; and this cannot be without faith. …No man can turn to God, except he be first turned of God: and after he is turned, he repents; so Ephraim says, “After I was converted, I repented,” 6 (Jer 31:19). The truth is, a repentant sinner first believes that God will do that which he promiseth, namely, pardon his sin, and take away his iniquity; then he rests in the hope of it; and from that, and for it, he leaves sin, and will forsake his old course, because it is displeasing to God; and will do that which is pleasing and acceptable to him. So that, first of all, God’s favour is apprehended, and remission of sins believed; then upon that cometh alteration of life and conversation.

Boston footnotes this section with a definition of and a description of the origin of true repentance…

True Repentance

True repentance is a turning unto God, a coming back to him again; a returning even unto the Lord, according to an usual Old Testament phrase, found, (Hosea 14:1), and rightly so translated, (Isa 19:22). …’Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince [or leader] and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins,’ (Acts 5:31). One would think this to be a sufficient intimation, that sinners not only may, but ought to go to him for true repentance; and not stand off from him until they get it to bring along with them; especially since repentance, as well as remission of sin, is a part of that salvation, which he as a Saviour is exalted to give, and consequently, which sinners are to receive and rest upon him for…”

Repentance-the Result of Regeneration and Grounded in Faith

This the Scripture teacheth, determining in the general, that without faith one can do nothing acceptable in the sight of God, (John 15:5), “Without me,” i.e. separate from me, “ye can do nothing.” (Heb 11:6), “Without faith it is impossible to please him”… Faith cometh of the word of God; hope cometh of faith; and charity springeth of them both. Faith believes that word; hope trusteth after that which is promised by the word; and charity doth good unto her neighbour.

What is Repentance – Baptist Doctrine

Baptist Catechism

Q 94. What is repentance unto life?

A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

Rom 6:18 – “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.”

Confer –
Acts 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25, Jeremiah 31:18-19, Luke 1:16-17, 2 Corinthians 7:10

Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689

(Sect 15.3) Saving repentance is a gospel grace* by which we are made aware of the many evils of our sin by the Holy Spirit. By faith in Christ we humble ourselves over our sin with godly sorrow, hatred of it, and self-loathing. We pray for pardon and strength of grace, and determine and endeavour, by [the power] supplied by the Spirit, to walk before God and to please him in all things.

*Confer – Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2Ti 2:25

Open Letter From Joel Beeke On Family Worship

2012-02-06T21:16:00.001-06:00

Watch Your Conjunctions in Parenting – The Gospel Coalition Blog

2012-02-02T17:27:00.000-06:00

Watch Your Conjunctions in Parenting – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Hunger and Thirst No More (Part 2)

2012-01-19T05:25:00.001-06:00

Hunger and Thirst No More (Part 2)

C. Craig Wells

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35 (ESV)

We have identified two of the three-part focus of John 6 in the first part of this article. The first two being Jesus describing who he was along with the purpose for which he had come and the unbelief of the Jews who had heard the testimony. I will discuss the third focus in this part of the article, which is why some did not believe. The interpretation of the rest of this chapter is what is so controversial. This is why I tried my best to lay out the foundation in the first part of this article to set the stage for the interpretation of the next part of the chapter. The context is so important for the interpretation. The Jews had heard the gospel presented to them by Jesus, which they did not receive. Now we get into where Jesus describes to the Jews why they did not believe.

I ended the first part of this article with John 6:35 and that is where I will start in this part. Jesus was explicit in stating that he was the bread of life, which he was describing in the previous verses. The Jews were seeking physical bread that perishes for their physical life, which will also perish. Jesus was offering himself as bread of life for eternal life. The Jews wanted what they did not need. They were blind to their need for salvation. They were more concerned for the physical world and not their need for atonement to bring them to the kingdom of God unto eternal life. They trusted in their heritage as a people chosen by God. They trusted their works to be made right with God. The whole time Jesus was telling them that he was the one to whom they were to trust for eternal life.

The next part of the verse is clear in its statement. Whoever comes to Jesus will no longer hunger and whoever believes in him will no longer thirst. Some will argue that this coming to Jesus is not the same as believing, especially concerning verse 44. However, these two words, coming and believing, occur in the same verse. It is stating the same thing two different ways. It is very clear in the statement that “whoever believes in me shall never thirst”. You will live eternally if you believe who Jesus is and for what purpose he came. You cannot live physically without food and water; therefore, you must also come to Jesus for the bread of life so that you shall not hunger spiritually.

The physical person cannot live without food and water. You can live for many days without food; however, you can only live for only a couple of days without water. You must come to Jesus for bread of life so you will not hunger. You come to Jesus for this bread of life because you believe that Jesus is the bread of life. You do not come to Jesus for food in a physical way, if you do; you will be sorely disappointed. You come to Jesus because you see that he offers true bread from God unto eternal life. You believe that he offers what you need; therefore, you come. You would not come to Jesus if you did not believe what he offered was bread of life unto eternal life. In fact, that is the very reason people do not come to Jesus, they do not believe who he is or for what purpose he came. Jesus was very clear in stating the reason they were seeking him in verse 26. They were seeking Jesus for the wrong reason. They did not believe who he was or for what purpose for which he had come.

Verse 35 states the first focus of chapter 6 and verse 36 states the second focus, “you have seen me and yet do not believe”. Verse 37 starts Jesus’ explanation as to why those that do not believe do not believe. Verse 37 starts out “All that the Father gives me will come to me”. I have stated above to what coming to Jesus means, but now we have a qualifier added. The Father gives the ones that come to (believe) Jesus. That is not some. There is none, which slips through. All that the Father gives will come. The word “will” is very important here also. There is no “may” here. The negative implies that no one believes in Jesus unless the Father gives them up to Jesus. In a couple of verses, it will be explicit.

I have stated that chapter 6 describes both total depravity and irresistible grace in part one of this article. However, the second part of verse 37 also describes perseverance of the saints. All that the Father gives will come and all that come, none will Jesus cast out. What hope, comfort, and peace we have in these verses! God cast Satan out of heaven; however, we who come to Jesus for bread of life, Jesus will never cast out of the kingdom of God! We came to Jesus for salvation because the Father first gave us to him. Once we are in the hands of Jesus, he will never cast us out.

Jesus states in verse 38 that he had come only to do the Father’s will. Verse 39 states what the Father’s will is, “that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day”. Did you get that? The will of the Father is that all that he gives to Jesus, he shall not lose; even to raise them up on the last day. The Father has a people to call His own that we wants raised up on the last day; therefore He gives them to Jesus so that Jesus will not lose any or even cast out, but will raise up on the last day.

Verse 37 says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me”. Verse 39 says, “that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day”. Verse 39 says nothing about coming to Jesus or believing. It clearly says that all that Jesus receives from the Father, Jesus will raise them up on the last day. Faith is the means by which salvation comes to us, for our salvation is through faith. However, according to verse 39, that is a guarantee when the Father delivers up to Christ those He has chosen.

Verse 40 is an exclamation point to verse 39. Jesus states again the will of his Father. Jesus says, “Everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last days”. This verse is explicit in the fact that those believing in Jesus will have eternal life. That is faith unto salvation. The point I want to make is the fact that verse 39 has the same words, “I will raise him up on the last days”. These words tie verse 39 to verse 40. Verse 39 has these words in reference to Jesus not losing any that the Father gives him. The people that believe and have eternal life are raised up on the last day, which are the people the Father gave to Jesus from the beginning. Please do not overlook how these verses connect to each other and what they are saying. To have eternal life, you must believe in Christ. However, that will only come when the Father gives you up to Christ so that you will believe.

“That I should lose nothing of all that the he has given me” in verse 39 ties to verse 37 where Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me”. Can you see how Jesus says the same thing in all the verses from 37 through 40, but said 3 different ways? You must come to Jesus by believing in the person and work of Jesus. However, you will not come to Jesus until the Fathers gives you over to him. When he does, then you are secure in the hands of Jesus, for he will even raise you up on the last day.

You would think verses 35 through 40 were enough for them to understand. However, the Jews were grumbling over what Jesus was saying, indicating they did not understand and believe what he was telling them. Therefore, Jesus goes deeper into the truths of the reason they were not receiving the message and believing in verses 41 through 51.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”. This verse says that no one can come to Jesus in believing that he is the bread of life unto eternal life unless the Father draws him. The word, draw, in this verse comes under fire from so many different directions. I agree with those that say it does not mean faith or believing. However, I do believe it indirectly describes our total depravity and we being in such a state cannot come to Jesus in faith that he offers us eternal life, unless the Father brings us to Jesus first. This describes the doctrine of God’s irresistible grace.

The second part of the verse, “And I will raise him up on the last day”, connects to verses 39 and 40 where it is previously mentioned. What do you think “And I will raise him up on the last day” means? Would you not think it means the resurrection in the last day where the Father will glorify us in heaven where we will inherit the kingdom of God for all eternity? The answer is obviously yes. If this is our hope, how do we get there? It says that the Father must draw us first. The middle part is missing. We must believe, but the truth is that the most important thing is our receiving eternal life along with the fact that God the Father initiated the entire process. We would not have ever believed in Christ in the offering of himself as the bread of life if the Father had not brought us to Jesus first.

What does verse 45 say and what does it mean? Jesus uses the Old Testament in the first part of the verse when he uses Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:31-34. Our knowledge of who God is, our sinful condition, our need for salvation, and believing in Christ for that salvation is not achieved from our own understanding. The Jews in chapter 6 is a good example of this. We do not receive these truths from another human being and it sure is not from within. God himself must be the one that teaches us the spiritual truths that we must believe for salvation. Other New Testament passages such as, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, and 1 John 2:20, confirm this truth.

The second part of verse 45 is crucial. “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me”. The coming to Jesus is the believing that he offers the true bread, the bread of life. All that heard and learned from the Father come. That means that no one will come to Jesus for the bread of life unless one has heard and learned from the Father. This is the work of the Holy Spirit on our heart to reveal to us the glory of God, our sinful nature, our need for salvation, and Jesus for our salvation. If you have not heard or learned from the Father, you do not come to Jesus in faith. Verse 47 makes it very clear that whoever believes has eternal life and that faith does not come before being taught by the Father.

Jesus states again in verse 48 that he is the bread of life. He also mentions the manna from heaven again to direct them to what he was offering. What was he offering? In verse 51, again Jesus says that he is the living bread. This bread comes down out of heaven also. This describes Jesus as God incarnate. The last part of the verse describes what he was offering. It is his flesh! Jesus was describing to them that he was offering himself to the world for the forgiveness of sin. He was describing that he would be the bread that would be broken and given to those whom the Father had given him for their salvation. This describes how Jesus was to die for the sins of the world.

Verse 52 describes again their unbelief and Jesus again describing to them who he was and for what purpose he had come. The Jews knew that there was no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Jesus was describing to them in verse 54 how he would die and shed his blood for the forgiveness of sin. Whoever trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus, by feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood, would live forever. You are not to trust in anything else! If you want to live and live forever, you must trust in Jesus, feed on him and drink his blood for the life giving nourishment you really need, not the physical food that perishes.

Notice how Jesus focuses on his disciples in the last part of chapter 6. Even they were grumbling about what Jesus had said. Is it a hard saying? Yes it is! Jesus was the Lamb of God that would take away the sin of the World. It was his body that was broken and his blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sin. No one can know this and receive this in faith without the Father first teaching the person and then bringing that person before Christ. This saying was so hard that many left and no longer were disciples of Jesus. Many were following Jesus for the wrong reason.

You can see how the Trinity is involved in the salvation of sinners in verse 63. The Spirit is the one that gives life. The Father chooses and brings them before Christ. The Spirit gives life through speaking and teaching the heart the things spiritual making that person spiritually alive. Christ died on the cross and gave himself up by the shedding of his blood for the atonement of sin for those that the Father gave him. Our faith is the means by which our salvation is applied, even though our faith is not what initiates the process. Our faith would not be there if it were not for the work of God first. God is the initiator of our salvation.

Jesus made this clear in verse 65. I want to put this in context so that we do not miss this. Verse 64 says, “But there are some of you who do not believe”. Okay, the disciples were grumbling and Jesus came out and directly said that some did not believe. The next verse, Jesus says, “This is why I told you”. To what does “this” refer? Of course, it is the fact that some did not believe. Jesus is about to tell them exactly why some did not believe.

The second part of the verse, which says, “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”. I believe it is clear that coming to Jesus is the same as believing in him as the bread of life. Anyone can come to Jesus for many reasons as described in the first part of chapter 6. However, no one will come to Jesus and trust him for salvation before the Father first grants that person come to Christ.

There is much debate about what the word grant means in this verse. You read it and tell me what it means. The KJV may state better, for it says, “no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father”. We can say that the “come unto me” refers to believing or faith in who Jesus is and to what purpose he came. The “it” refers to this “come unto me” or believing. This faith or believing is what the Father gives to him. The word “given” means bestow, bring forth, deliver up, and grant. A person is not going to believe in Jesus unto salvation without the teaching first by the Father. John 12:37-41 is a great verse that confirms this very doctrine.

As you can see, chapter 6 is loaded with doctrine. The implication of total inability to believe in Christ unto salvation is described in how God the Father must first take the initiative. We cannot on our own. Irresistible grace is explicit in these verses, because it clearly states that all that God gives to Christ believe. Perseverance of the saints is also explicit when it is described how the Father gives a person up to Christ, that none is lost, and all are raised up on the last day.

May all glory be to God!

Hunger and Thirst No More

2012-01-16T23:03:00.000-06:00

Hunger and Thirst No More (Part 1)

C. Craig Wells

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35 (ESV)

John chapter six has much to say and is worth the time invested in mining its treasures. Jesus performs two signs in verse 1 through 21, which demonstrated Jesus’ deity. Jesus fed five thousand with five loaves of bread and two fish. Afterwards, he walks on water. These were signs that left the Jews wondering who Jesus was.

Verses 22 through 71 convey deep things of God. These verses can describe total depravity and some will contend that it describes irresistible grace. I contend that it is not either or, but both. I will focus on these verses in my discussion, however, we must consider the context that involves the first twenty-one verses to be able to comprehend God’s message. I hope to demonstrate that these verses focus on who Jesus said he was and the unbelief of the Jews along with the reason for their unbelief. If we fail to see the context of these first twenty-one verses, we will most likely misinterpret the scriptures and completely take them out of context, therefore, hiding the truths revealed in them.

Before I dig into the scriptures, I want to explain the reason for this article. John 6 is crucial in explaining total depravity and irresistible grace. I will confess that I had difficulty trying to convince a skeptic towards the doctrines of grace when using John 6. I understand that it is not up to me to convince anyone of the truths in the bible, for it is the work of the Spirit of God. However, we must be knowledgeable and have understanding of the scripture to be able to accurately present the truth so that there will be no other reason for unbelieving other than hardness of heart. If we cannot understand these passages, explain them, or defend them, then we will not be able to do so anywhere else in the bible. I am not saying there are no other passages describing total depravity; I am only saying that John 6 should be definitive. John 6 should put to rest any questions concerning total depravity or irresistible grace. This is not so we can win a debate, but only to increase our faith and knowledge in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We know all too well the signs Jesus performed in the first twenty-one verses in the feeding of the five thousand and him walking on water. We seem to forget the connection between these signs and the rest of the chapter. The interpretation of this chapter depends on the connection of the signs and the discourse that follow. These verses are in the same chapter for a reason.

In fact, chapter 5 can be included as context as well. In chapter 5, Jesus explained who he was and by whose authority he was performing the works he was doing. He clearly was stating that he and the Father were one. (John 5:19-29) Even John 5:39-40 has Jesus telling spiritual truths in which they did not believe. This entire thought continued over into chapter 6. There were multitudes of people who were seeing the miraculous signs and heard the word of eternal life, but were not getting it. They remained in their unbelief. Some of the Jews understood very well what the implications of what Jesus said to them. (John 5:18) However, they refused to accept or receive the truth. They did not believe.

The Jews knew very well who they thought he was and to some degree, were accurate. (John 6:14-15) He is much more than a prophet. In addition, they wanted to make him king, however, the devil had already tempted Jesus with lordship of this world while Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days. In addition, Jesus was to give them much more than national pride and a ruler who would deliver them from Roman suppression. He was offering them eternal life!

How do we know this? If we used just the first five chapters of The Gospel of John, it would be enough to testify that Jesus was the Savior of the world. It should not have been any doubt. Jesus was clear in stating who he was and for what purpose he had come. (John 1:29, John 1:34, John 3:14, John 4:14, John 4:26) In fact, many did believe and received Christ. (John 1:41, John 1:49, John 2:11, John 2:23, John 3:36, John 4:42, John 4:53) However, many did not receive the truth. In fact, the Pharisees wanted to kill him due to his claims and teachings. The question is why did so many not believe? You would think the evidence would be so compelling that everybody should not have had any doubt. Why did some believe and others not?

Jesus told them in John 5:39-40 and John 5:45-47 that they trusted the scriptures and Moses, but they did not believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the scriptures, the one that gives eternal life. This is the crux of the two chapters, Jesus explaining to the Jews who he was and the purpose of his coming up against their unbelief. The entire second half of John 6 deals with Jesus explaining the reason for their unbelief.

Many people say that people do not believe only due to purely their decision not accept the truth. They say that their decision is without any external influences. They say it is purely like a choice of accepting or rejecting any type of gift. It is even said to be as easy as choosing a direction to take in a fork in the road. I contend that our own affections or what seems to be for our best good is the basis for all our decisions. I believe that Jesus explains that we cannot choose rightly unto salvation due to our corrupt nature, which encompasses our entire being, including our will. I hope to show that in the following text.

Verses 22-26 says, “On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.” This is the next day after Jesus fed the five thousand and on top of that, they had no idea where Jesus had gone. They knew the disciples had left on a boat without Jesus the evening before. So, what did these people do? They went across the sea to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. For what were they seeking him? What did they want from him? The whole chapter stands on this question. What they were wanting and what Jesus was offering are entirely two different things.

Verse 25 explains the confusion of the people. Jesus was on the other side of the sea without a good explanation of how. Thus the question, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” He has already fed five thousand and they are confused concerning when and how he arrived on the other side of the sea. They called him rabbi, which means teacher. They did not know who he was; they considered him only as a teacher. He had already demonstrated in chapter five that he was much more than a teacher! They should not have been confused if they had believed him when he told them that he and God were equal. They should have none that nothing is impossible with God.

How did Jesus answer their question in verse 26? A direct answer they did not get. They were asking for a reason from a physical position and Jesus was about to embark on a discourse from a spiritual position. The first thing he did was address the real reason they were seeking him. He says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” They were seeking him for the wrong reason. They just wanted their bellies filled again. The signs were enough to testify he was the Messiah; however, they were not there to bow to him, but only asking for food to nourish their physical bodies. (John 10:37-38) They were concerned for their physical needs and not their spiritual needs; and it gets worse.

Jesus lays everything out before them in verse 27 when he says, “Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Jesus told them not to strive for physical food that perishes. He told them to strive for the food that endures to eternal life. We are talking about eternal life here! He was not here to set up an earthly kingdom. He was explaining that they would perish just as physical food will perish unless they receive the food that endures to eternal life. They really do not have to labor at all, for he told them that he would give it to them. Eternal life is of grace and not by works.

What is the food that endures to eternal life? God’s creatures while in the physical realm require nourishment (bread and water) to stay alive. We depend on bread and water for us to live physically. Therefore, we must depend and trust in the bread from heaven for us to live spiritually. It is Jesus in the gospel that keeps us alive spiritually unto eternal life. We must feed on him. The gospel testifies that God is the Creator of all and is sovereign over all. The gospel testifies that man is dead in sin and in need of a savior.

That savior is Jesus Christ. We can do nothing to be made right with God. Our sin condemns us before a righteous and holy judge. The only way to be justified and entrance allowed into the eternal kingdom of God is to trust in Christ and his righteousness. We must divorce ourselves from seeking satisfaction from anything in this world, whether external to us or internal. We are not to trust our religion or our works for justification. The world should not be what satisfies; we need redemption and atonement for our sins if we are to enter the kingdom of God and have eternal life. Like eating bread for life sustaining nourishment in the physical realm, we need the bread of life to give us spiritual life in the spiritual realm so that we may have eternal life. Do not trust in bread that perishes, but trust only in Christ for eternal life. (Luke 22:19-20) Are we more concerned with our wants here in the physical world, which are only temporary, when we should be more concerned about what we need spiritually for eternal life?

Jesus even told them that he was the anointed one, which the prophets had prophesied. Jesus told them that the one to whom will give the food to eternal life was the one and same to whom God the Father had set his seal. Jesus had already told them in chapter 5 that God and he were equal. (John 5:18)

Do you think they were getting it? That would be a negative. They were still seeking physical comforts. They wanted the same power or works of God to be able to feed five thousand, or at least to be able to provide for themselves without laboring for it. Imagine what your life would be like if you did not have to labor for your food. However, that is contrary to the curse God placed on Adam and to his descendents due to the fall. (Genesis 3:19)

Jesus responded by telling them that the work of God was for them to believe in whom he has sent. As you can see, the entire context surrounds the idea of believing. Do you think they got it this time? No, they are seeking food again. They said that their fathers ate manna in the wilderness and they were expecting to see Jesus do something similar. They were still seeking to have their bellies filled. Jesus explained to them that it was not Moses who gave them bread from heaven, but the Father. The Father gives the true bread from heaven. Jesus then narrows down the discourse even more. He says that the bread of life is he who comes down from heaven and gives life unto the world. He was telling them that the bread of life was a person. This person was Jesus! He was telling them that he was God incarnate. He had come down from heaven in which he was to offer himself as bread of life, coming from the very hand of God.

Do you think they finally got it this time? Of course, they do not! They are still thinking about their bellies! They ask Jesus to give them this bread always, like manna from heaven when their fathers were in the wilderness. Jesus started out in a broad manner in his discourse, but now he is narrowing it down so as giving them a direct explanation. Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” You cannot get any more direct than that. He was laying out spiritual truths and they were not receiving it. He is the one prophesied to whom would take away sin. (Psalm 103:10, Psalm 107:17, Psalm 130:8, Isaiah 53:5) Why did they not understand or receive the spiritual truths presented to them by Jesus? They simply did not believe. However, why did they not believe?

We must understand what lay behind or underneath the dialogue between Jesus and these people in chapters 5 and 6. These people we seeking rest from their labors. They wanted food provided for them without labor so that they can rest and enjoy life on this earth. They wanted freedom from Rome. These people trusted in their heritage as Jews and their religion for their righteousness. They trusted in the things of this world for their joy, love, and peace. Jesus was telling them that rest eternal was through him. They were seeking the things from this world and not seeking the things of heaven. (Luke 12:30-31)

Chapters 5 and 6 in entirety, deal with unbelief. Jesus was giving them truth and they did not receive it. The question one has to ask is why did they not believe? Is this question important? Yes, I believe it does. I believe it determines how much we give God the glory for our salvation. It also determines how we evangelize. It is totally a work of God or we have to help God by the way we present the message. The many gimmicks used to present the gospel demonstrate the latter, even preaching a false gospel. The former demonstrates how grace is really grace and God deserves all the praise and honor. The message in chapter 6 seems very clear, especially from our perspective when looking in a rearview mirror. So far, we can see how Jesus brought up front the Jew’s unbelief and I hope to explain how Jesus focuses on that unbelief and how he describes the reason for their unbelief in the next part of this article.

Important Issue Of The Reformation

2012-01-13T15:37:00.003-06:00

The New Testament presents two aspects of God's work:

Number 1 — God's work for us in Christ.
Number 2 — God's work in us by the Holy Spirit.

Number 1 is what God did outside of us in the person of Jesus. This is the gospel – God's act of redemption in Jesus. Number 2 is what God does within our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This is the fruit of the gospel, for faith in Number 1 brings the Holy Spirit to the believer.
Number 2 must not be confused with Number 1; neither must it be divorced from Number 1. While faith must rest on the objective work of God in Christ, faith always brings the Holy Spirit with His renewing and sanctifying work in the hearts of men.
If you take a long pole, you can balance it in an upright position on your finger if you keep your eye focused on the top of the pole. The movement of your finger will follow naturally, almost unconsciously. But if you start watching what your finger is doing, the pole will become unbalanced and fall.
As the believer looks away from self to Christ and rejoices in what He has done for him and what He is to him, the Spirit of God will live in his heart and continue to transform his life. But if the believer begins to make his experience the center of his concern, the true balance of Christian faith is lost.
The tendency of human nature is to make the subjective aspect of Christianity the focal point of concern. This is what happened in the early church. It lost sight of the great Pauline message of justification by God's work outside of man. Even in the teachings of the fathers of the post-apostolic church, the objective truth of justification by faith held no prominent place. More and more the church began to focus on the experience of sanctification. Indeed, justification came to be looked upon only as an initiating step at the beginning of the Christian's life; the mighty Pauline truth about justification was subordinated to what was thought to be the higher blessing of sanctification. The focus of attention was away from the gospel to the fruit of the gospel, away from Christ's experience to Christian experience, away from the objective to the subjective.
We do not depreciate Christian experience when we say it is not the most important thing. Indeed, true Christian experience is attained when men make God's work outside of themselves the foundation of their hope, the focus of their attention and the object of their glorying.
As the church continued to lose the objective truth of the gospel, it became more and more centered in religious experientialism. The pursuit of an extraordinary religious experience became the great passion of the medieval church. Men began to do all sorts of weird and wonderful things in order to attain what they thought was a successful religious experience. Society was so drowned in its religious subjectivism that mankind made no scientific or sociological progress. Rather, civilization went backwards under the influence of so-called Christian teaching. Men carried crosses around Europe or sat on poles looking for some rare vision of God and truth. People went on useless pilgrimages, venerated “holy” relics and indulged in the most incredible superstitions. Christendom became a great cesspool of fantastic ignorance and stagnation.
At the heart of all this corruption was the medieval church's doctrine of justification. Amazingly enough, the church did not abandon such Biblical expressions as Justification and salvation by grace. The words of Paul were still used freely by the theologians (as they are today), but the great Pauline words (justification, grace, etc.) had evolved a new meaning altogether. Justification had lost its objective, forensic meaning. Instead of meaning what God did outside of man in pronouncing him righteous, it came to mean God's renewing, sanctifying act in man's own heart. (Thus Number 1 and Number 2 were utterly confounded.) Instead of justifying grace meaning the disposition of mercy and favor in God's heart, grace had come to mean a God-given quality that adorned the human soul. The classical doctrine of the church declared that men were justified by God's work in their own hearts and experiences. That is to say, it taught justification by Number 2 instead of by Number 1.

The Reformation Rediscovers Paul
Martin Luther has been called the clearest teacher of the righteousness which is of faith since the days of the apostle Paul. He utterly rejected the church's teaching that God's work within a man qualifies him to be accepted in the sight of a righteous God. He saw that no man could find enough righteousness or grace in his heart to confront God with an easy conscience, and that no one could have any certainty of salvation if it were to be based on his own experience. Justifying grace, Luther discovered, is not some quality that God infuses into the soul, but is God's favor given to those who are sinful, lost and undeserving. God's grace in the believer's heart is not the foundation of a Christian, proclaimed the Reformer, but God's grace in Christ. Christ's objective work of doing and dying for us, rather than His work within us, is the sole basis of our acceptance with God; for the moment justification becomes based on a subjective experience, confidence toward God and assurance of justification flee.
The contrast between the medieval church and the Reformation may be summarized as follows:

The Medievial church

Justified by God's work of grace in the heart.
Justified by Christ's work in our hearts.

The Reformation church

Justified by God's work of grace in Christ.
Justified by Christ's work outside of our hearts, i.e., on the cross.

The medieval thought was man-centered, experience-centered, and subjective. The Reformation thought was Christ-centered, cross-centered, and objective.

The Reformers did not deny the Spirit's work of renewal and sanctification within the hearts of God's people. But they saw clearly that we must first be justified by faith alone in a work completely outside of us. Then will the conscience be cleansed, the heart will find peace with God, and a life of good works will flow from the certain conviction of being accepted of God.

The Nature of a Christian Man
Is the believer in Christ a sinner or a saint? Does grace make him more and more righteous, less and less sinful? Are the good works of a Spirit-filled man still defiled with human imperfection and sin?
Rome and the Reformers were agreed that man was born with a corrupt, sinful nature, although the Reformation did have a much clearer view of the radical nature of human corruption.
The medieval church thought of grace as being infused to change and transform the sinful nature of man. By this transforming change within him, the believer was said to be made just in God's sight. Then, as he received more and more grace, the believer was said to become less and less sinful and at the same time more and more just in the sight of God. Good works were done in the believer by the indwelling of Christ and, because of this, were thought to be entirely pleasing and acceptable to God. Rome held out to men the possibility of becoming pure and sinless "Saints" (ontological perfection), and those who attained this perfection reached "Sainthood" and were qualified to enter heaven at the hour of death. Those who did not become perfect and absolutely sinless in the flesh would need to go to purgatory after death and thus be made completely just and qualified to enter heaven.
On the other hand, the Reformers said that God justifies the ungodly who believe on Christ (Rom. 4: 5), and that God covers the sinner with the mantle of Christ's righteousness. Therefore the believer is accepted as just and righteous, not because of grace or righteousness poured into him, but because of the righteousness placed upon Him by the imputation of Christ's sinless life. There is no such thing as the believer becoming more and more just, said the Reformers, for he is fully just before God. There are no degrees of righteousness with God. Either a man is fully righteous with Him or not righteous at all. Man is either accepted fully or not at all. Thus the relative stance of Romanism was utterly rejected.
Furthermore, said the Protestants, grace does not change the sinful nature of the believer. The sinful nature is so desperately wicked that it cannot be reformed by all efforts with or without grace. This nature will always be sinful as long as life shall last, and whether a man is a Christian or not makes no change in the "sinful flesh." But, said the Reformers, the Holy Spirit brings to the justified sinner a new nature, even a new man which is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24). A Christian therefore has two natures. The old nature is called "flesh" because it is born of the flesh; the new nature is called "spirit" because it is born of the Spirit (John 3:6). Furthermore, these two natures are contrary one to the other. Says the apostle Paul, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Gal. 5:17. And in a parallel passage he describes the reality of two natures within a justified saint:

"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Rom. 7:15-:25.

To the Reformers there was no such thing as the believer becoming more and more just; neither did the believer's old nature become less and less sinful. Luther coined a Latin expression to describe the nature of a Christian man: simul justus et pecator (at the same time righteous and sinful).
A Christian does not live by trying to reform the flesh, much less by purifying the flesh from its corruption; but he gets above it and walks in a new state in Christ. This is the theme of Paul's thought in Romans 8. The believer does not live "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit." That is, he follows the desires, promptings and dictates of the Spirit; and by His indwelling power he denies, fights and puts to death the desires and inclinations of the flesh. In this way the Christian is called to a life of suffering (Rom. 8:10-18; 1 Peter 4:1, 2), to constant warfare against the sinful nature. The Spirit is not given to release him from painful conflict but to sustain him in successful conflict until the end.

"… ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." Rom. 8:23-25.

Thus, the believer is always a saint, always a sinner. In Christ he is fully righteous; in himself, by reason of the sinful nature, he is fully sinful. He has peace, but it is in the midst of war; he has rest, but it is with tribulations.
Then too, the Reformers had a very different view from the medieval church on the matter of a Christian's good works. God must first accept our persons, they said, quite apart from any of our works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4-6). Whereas the medieval church taught that God accepts men's persons because of their works (done with God's help of course!), the Reformers declared that God accepts our works because He has accepted our persons through faith in the Substitute. No good work of the saints is entirely without sin, said Luther and Calvin many times. True, God's Spirit causes Christians to do good works, but the sinful nature of man corrupts all these works with the taint of human imperfection, said they. Good works are accepted only by mercy and by the intercession of Christ's merit at the right hand of God. Neither our persons nor our works are ever perfect, declared the Reformers, but our perfection, righteousness and entire satisfaction to the law reside only in and with our Head.
There is no fulfillment in human experience in this life. Our righteousness with God is only by faith and not by the reality of our own experience. Christ is our righteousness, and His person is not here on earth but in heaven. Now we are righteous by faith; but hope looks to the coming of Christ when we shall be altogether righteous by nature as the angels. Faith pertains to the "now," hope to the "not yet." Faith looks to the cross and what has been done for us; hope looks to the glorious future that will be ushered in at Christ's return. Hope refreshes faith in this waiting period between the first and second coming of Christ. Faith restrains hope from trying to bring the "not yet" into the "now." By faith the Christian knows that sin, the sinful nature, death and Satan are already vanquished; but he still feels sin within, the devil without, and sees death on every hand. If this were not so, there would be no need to fight the good fight of faith. But by the Spirit he waits and groans for the day when sin, death and the devil will be abolished as threatening, visible foes.

Present truth magazine...article 4

How should we think of spiritual disciplines and their connection with spirituality as defined by Scripture?

2012-01-10T11:00:00.000-06:00

By D. A. Carson

How shall we evaluate this popular approach to the spiritual disciplines? How should we think of spiritual disciplines and their connection with spirituality as defined by Scripture? Some introductory reflections:

(1) The pursuit of unmediated, mystical knowledge of God is unsanctioned by Scripture, and is dangerous in more than one way. It does not matter whether this pursuit is undertaken within the confines of, say, Buddhism (though informed Buddhists are unlikely to speak of "unmediated mystical knowledge of God"—the last two words are likely to be dropped) 3 or, in the Catholic tradition, by Julian of Norwich. Neither instance recognizes that our access to the knowledge of the living God is mediated exclusively through Christ, whose death and resurrection reconcile us to the living God. To pursue unmediated, mystical knowledge of God is to announce that the person of Christ and his sacrificial work on our behalf are not necessary for the knowledge of God. Sadly, it is easy to delight in mystical experiences, enjoyable and challenging in themselves, without knowing anything of the regenerating power of God, grounded in Christ's cross work.

(2) We ought to ask what warrants including any particular item on a list of spiritual disciplines. For Christians with any sense of the regulative function of Scripture, nothing, surely, can be deemed a spiritual discipline if it is not so much as mentioned in the NT. That rather eliminates not only self-flagellation but creation care. Doubtless the latter, at least, is a good thing to do: it is part of our responsibility as stewards of God's creation. But it is difficult to think of scriptural warrant to view such activity as a spiritual discipline—that is, as a discipline that increases our spirituality. The Bible says quite a lot about prayer and hiding God's Word in our hearts, but precious little about creation care and chanting mantras.

(3) Some of the entries on the list are slightly ambiguous. At one level, the Bible says nothing at all about journaling. On the other hand, if journaling is merely a convenient label for careful self-examination, contrition, thoughtful Bible reading, and honest praying, using the habit of writing a journal to foster all four, it cannot be ruled outside the camp the way self-flagellation must be. The apostle declares celibacy to be an excellent thing, provided one has the gift (both marriage and celibacy are labeled charismata, "grace gifts"), and provided it is for the sake of increased ministry (1 Cor 7). On the other hand, there is nothing that suggests celibacy is an intrinsically holier state, and absolutely nothing under the terms of the new covenant warrants withdrawing into cloisters of celibate monks or nuns who have physically retreated from the world to become more spiritual. Meditation is not an intrinsic good. A huge amount depends on the focus of one's meditation. Is it one imagined dark spot on a sheet of white? Or is it the law of the Lord (Ps 1:2)?

(4) Even those spiritual disciplines that virtually all would acknowledge to be such must not be misunderstood or abused. The very expression is potentially misleading: spiritual discipline, as if there is something intrinsic to self-control, to the imposition of self-discipline, that qualifies one to be more spiritual. Such assumptions and mental associations can lead only to arrogance; worse, they often lead to condescending judgmentalism: others may not be as spiritual as I am since I am disciplined enough to have an excellent prayer time or a superb Bible-reading scheme. But the truly transformative element is not the discipline itself, but the worthiness of the task undertaken: the value of prayer, the value of reading God's Word.

(5) It is not helpful to list assorted Christian responsibilities and label them spiritual disciplines. That seems to be the reasoning behind the theology that smuggles in, say, creation care and almsgiving. But by the same logic, if out of Christian kindness you give a back rub to an old lady with a stiff neck and a sore shoulder, then back rubbing becomes a spiritual discipline. By such logic, any Christian obedience is a spiritual discipline, that is, it makes us more spiritual. Using the category of spiritual disciplines in that way has two unfortunate entailments. First, if every instance of obedience is a spiritual discipline, then there is nothing special about the emphatically emphasized, biblically mandated means of grace: prayer, for instance, and serious reading of and meditation on the Word of God. Second, such a way of thinking about spiritual disciplines subtly cajoles us into thinking that growth in spirituality is a function of nothing more than conformity to the demands of a lot of rules, of a lot of obedience. Certainly Christian maturity is not manifest where there is not obedience. Yet there is also a great deal of emphasis on growth in love, in trust, in understanding the ways of the living God, in the work of the Spirit in filling and empowering us.

(6) For these reasons it seems the part of wisdom to restrict the label "spiritual disciplines" to those Bible-prescribed activities that are explicitly said to increase our sanctification, our conformity to Christ Jesus, our spiritual maturation. When Jesus in John 17 prays that his Father will sanctify his followers through the truth, he adds, "Your word is truth." Small wonder that believers have long labeled things like the study of the truth of the gospel "means of grace"—a lovely expression less susceptible to misinterpretation than spiritual disciplines.

* * * * * * *

Why Is Doctrine Important?

2012-01-07T11:10:00.000-06:00

Why should Christians be familiar with the great doctrines of the Bible? Let me give you four reasons.

1) The first is the simplest of all: Because we love God. And if you love someone, you want to know everything about them. If a young man meets a girl and falls in love, he’ll want to find out all sorts of things about her - what sort of family she’s from, which school she went to, what her hobbies are, whether she’s had other boyfriends, whether she prefers Indian or Chinese food ... And if we love God, we’ll want to know all about him - about his nature, his character, his purposes, his commandments; about the work he’s doing in the world, about his work in saving people, about his plans for the future. In other words we’ll want to study ‘doctrine’. If I ask you what ‘justification’ means, what I’m really asking is, ‘how does God justify sinners?’ If I ask you what the Lord’s Supper is for, what I’m really asking is ‘what does God do for us through the Lord’s Supper?’ All our doctrines are about God.

2) A second reason why Christians should study doctrine: Because what you believe will shape your spiritual life. It’s obvious isn’t it? The way you think about God will affect the way you relate to God. If you don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, you can’t believe that God is eternally love. It’s the doctrine of the Trinity that gives us confidence to believe that love is in the very nature of God. Again, if you believe that God is only in control when good things happen, you can’t trust him in the times when everything goes wrong. It’s the doctrine of God’s total sovereignty that enables us to say in the darkest hour, 'I don’t know why this has happened but I know you planned it, and that you planned it for my good'. Or again, if you’ve never realised that God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify himself, every part of your relationship with him will be distorted. Instead of having him at the centre, you’ll go through life thinking that human happiness is the most important thing of all - and expecting him to think so too.

I said above that studying doctrine is really just finding out the truth about God. And we need to do that so that we can relate to the God who’s really there, not the God we imagine him to be.

3) And then thirdly, we need to study doctrine, because without it we won’t understand the world in which we live. Or to put it differently, we won’t know how to live in the world.

A friend whose husband is suffering with a crippling and painful illness asks you whether you think euthanasia is wrong, and if so, why. Or somebody asks you why the Bible is against homosexuality. You’re not going to be able to answer those questions in any consistent way unless you understand the doctrine of Man as the image of God. It’s the fact that every human being is God’s image-bearer which gives every human life - however damaged - infinite value. It’s the fact that Man and Woman in their union are supposed to mirror the diversity in the Trinity, which makes homosexuality such an unnatural thing.

You’re trying to sort out your children’s behaviour problems. How far are they to blame for the tendencies that they’ve inherited from you? When do you restrain a child? When do you punish him? When do you encourage him? The only way you’ll get clear answers to those questions is by taking seriously a whole string of Bible doctrines: the doctrine of God’s justice; the doctrine of the Fall and the effect of Adam’s sin on all his descendants; the doctrine of total depravity; the doctrine of common grace ... No wonder that parents in our society are at sea when it comes to bringing up children! They don’t know what human nature is, they don’t know what justice is, they don’t know what authority they themselves have. But the doctrines of the Bible give you compass and chart through the storms.

A thorough knowledge of Bible doctrine will give you the tools to sort out all the practical problems of living in this complex fallen world - even in matters where the Bible doesn’t speak directly.

4) And fourthly, we need to study Bible doctrine because without it we won’t know what to say to the unsaved people we meet. Peter tells us that we must be ‘prepared to give to every man a reason for the hope that is within us’ (1 Peter 3:15). We have to be competent to answer questions. So what do you say when someone asks how God can allow a tsunami to sweep away scores of thousands of people? How can you answer that question if you’ve never grappled with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty? How do you answer when your child says to you ‘I’ve tried to become a Christian but it didn’t work?’ You’ll need a very clear grasp then of just what saving faith is, and how it relates to the human will, and where assurance fits in. Your atheist friend sneers at the food laws of Leviticus and asks why God changed his mind; why he lets you eat prawns and pork. Are you going to be able to sum up clearly the function of the Old Testament law and how it’s fulfilled in Christ?

Well, if I gave you a test on Bible doctrines, how would you do? OK? You think you could answer all the questions without much difficulty? I’m very glad. But remember, that would only scratch the surface. Don’t imagine that you would have mastered the doctrines of the Bible. It would take a thousand lifetimes to explore all that God has revealed about himself in Scripture. It will take all eternity to explore God himself in the world where we’ll need no Bible. Keep growing, keep learning, keep thinking. Another quote from Peter:

Therefore dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever! Amen. (2 Peter 3:17-18).

‘Hold on to what you already know, and grow in knowledge!’ - that’s his advice.

And what about those of you who would struggle? Well I can’t blame you. Put it down to the preacher you’ve had to listen to each Sunday night. But don’t give up. Go back and listen to some of the sermons again. You may find that they make more sense second time through, when you’re at home and the children have gone to bed. You couldn’t take in all the passages I quoted? Well listening on your own you’ll be able to stop the recording to look them up, and make sure you’ve grasped what they’re saying. If questions come to your mind as you’re listening and you can’t find the answers, write them down and ask me. If I don’t know the answers, we’ll both have some work to do.

There are lots of good books to help us. We’ve got the 1689 confession - what a wonderful guide to Christian doctrine! We’ve got the big books of systematic theology, written by giants like Dabney, Hodge, Berkhof or Dagg, and smaller handbooks like Bruce Milne’s Know the Truth or Berkhof’s Summary. We’ve got masterful works on individual doctrines like Bavinck’s Doctrine of God or John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. And we’ve got the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. We don’t expect him to reveal new truth to us now. But we do expect him to illuminate the truth that he’s already revealed in Scripture.

Stephen Rees is Pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Stockport, Manchester. The above was printed originally in its monthly magazine.

www.gbcstockport.org.uk

Why Do I Use Facebook?

2011-12-26T20:02:00.003-06:00

Why do I use facebook? Well, for me I sure "try" not to use it to post messages and musings about myself and others. No, there is nothing sinful if that is what you do. I am certainly sure that in the not so distant past and in the near future I will and have fallen victim to what I am "trying" to avoid. Overuses of morally neutral items that most often slide in the direction of subtle and often blatant idolatry is something that as a fallen creature I will have to unfortunately deal with until my heavenly father calls me home, I'm sure. I primarily set out to use facebook kinda like a form of ministry tool. I don't know about you but some of the "friends" that the wife and I have on our combined friend list are under the wrath of God and are lost. Some of those "friends" that profess Christ are actually following unbiblical doctrines or even maybe even false heretical doctrine. For me, the idea that we have a platform to promote the gospel, sound doctrine and a place to edify the saints as well as promote a Christian Worldview to those who are on our "friend" list is very appealing to me. For me this is the most God honoring way to use this medium.

I have seen our use of facebook with this ministry mindset put in action successfully and effectively promoting the areas listed above. I find it difficult in the idea of separating and compartmentalising my media usage. Maybe a John Piperism or a C.J. Mahaneyism would be useful here..."don't waste your media" is what I'm thinking. There are some really good discussion groups that tackle some important issues facing us in this Christian Pilgrimage.
Quite frankly I have been greatly edified in a place I least expected. I guess I am saying that you really can get meaningful spiritual content from Facebook. I have seen some really good articles posted there. I hope that never stops. What is also interesting to note is that the cults and false teachers see the value of this and other social media. Here is an article that was
written by a Mormon church elder encouraging members to promote their heresy via social media and Internet......http://lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng.

here also......http://ldswhy.com/qa/how-can-i-share-the-gospel-using-facebook/

With Ecclesiastes 9:10 in mind, as you type your comments or update your status

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. ( ESV)

I leave you with the commentary of this verse by Matthew Henry

Whatsoever thy hand finds to do do it with thy might. Observe here, (1.) There is not only something to be had, but something to be done, in this life, and the chief good we are to enquire after is the good we should do, Ecclesiastes 2:3. This is the world of service; that to come is the world of recompense. This is the world of probation and preparation for eternity; we are here upon business, and upon our good behaviour. (2.) Opportunity is to direct and quicken duty. That is to be done which our hand finds to do, which occasion calls for; and an active hand will always find something to do that will turn to a good account. What must be done, of necessity, our hand will here find a price in it for the doing of, Proverbs 17:16. (3.) What good we have an opportunity of doing we must do while we have the opportunity, and do it with our might, with care, vigour, and resolution, whatever difficulties and discouragements we may meet with in it. Harvest-days are busy days; and we must make hay while the sun shines. Serving God and working out our salvation must be done with all that is within us, and
all little enough. (4.) There is good reason why we should work the works of him that sent us while it is day, because the night comes, wherein no man can work, John 9:4. We must up and be doing now with all possible diligence, because our doing-time will be done shortly and we know not how soon. But this we know that, if the work of life be not done when our time is done, we are undone for ever: "There is no work to be done, nor device to do it, no knowledge for speculation, nor wisdom for practice, in the grave whither thou goest." We are all going towards the grave; every day brings us a step nearer to it; when we are in the grave it will be too late to mend the errors of life, too late to repent and make our peace with God, too late to lay up any thing in store for eternal life; it must be done now or never. The grave is a land of darkness and silence, and therefore there is no doing any thing for our souls there; it must be done now or never, John 12:35

What Is Mortification Of Sin?

2011-12-24T17:50:00.001-06:00

An article from Banner of Truth

Owen’s teaching is based on Romans 8:13: ‘If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live’, although he also alludes to the other New Testament reference to mortification, notably to Colossians 3:15, where the Apostle Paul exhorts his readers: ‘Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence and covetousness, which is idolatry’.

However, although the actual word ‘mortify’ appears only twice in the New Testament, ‘it gets right to the heart of the conflict in which the Christian is involved’, says Kenneth Prior, ‘and which is such an essential part of his sanctification’.²

Commenting on Romans 8:13, Dr. Lloyd-Jones described mortification as ‘Vital and crucial to the understanding of the New Testament doctrine of Sanctification’.³ Now that being so, the first question we need to ask is, ‘What is Mortification?’ So we begin with a definition.

‘To mortify,’ says Owen, ‘is to put to death or crucify any living thing or principle, to take away its strength, so that it cannot act according to its nature.’ Or again, ‘to mortify is to extinguish and destroy all that force and vigour of corrupted nature which inclines to earthly, carnal things, opposite unto that spiritual, heavenly life and its actings, which we have in and from Christ’ (Works, Vol. 3, p. 540).⁴ However, lest anyone should deduce from that the possibility of complete success in that activity in this world, Owen adds a vital qualification: ‘This word is used by our Apostle not absolutely to destroy and kill, so that that which is so mortified or killed should no more have any being, but that it should be rendered useless as unto what its strength and vigour would produce’ (3:540).

In other words, mortification, to Owen, is not eradication. It is the daily fighting against sin, and the weakening of it by the crucifying of the old nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. If Christ died for all our sins (6:41), he asks, ‘why dost thou not set thyself against them also?’ As Christians, we are committed to a lifelong battle against the world, the flesh and the devil. Mortification is our fight against the second of that trinity of evil. So to sum this point up in Owen’s own words,

To mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts. It is true that this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life accomplished. There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart of life. He would so kill it that it should never move nor stir any more, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at. Now, though doubtless there may, by the Spirit and grace of Christ, a wonderful success and eminency of victory against any sin be attained, so that a man may have almost constant triumph over it, yet an utter killing and destroying of it, that it should not be, is not in this life to be expected’ (6:24-5).

Having defined his terms Owen proceeds in typical Puritan manner to summarise the teaching of Romans 8:13 in propositional form. ‘The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin’ (6:7). Now that is Owen’s fundamental assertion. Let us analyse this general statement and consider it, in Owen’s own words, under the form of several particular principles. First of all, we have:

A LIFE-LONG STRUGGLE

Though delivered from the guilt and dominion of sin, no Christian, whatever spiritual experiences he may have enjoyed, or however advanced in the Christian life he may be, is freed from the duty and necessity of mortification. And the cause of this continual warfare is found in the remaining presence of sin in the Christian. ‘Indwelling sin always abides while we are in the world,’ says Owen; ‘therefore it is always to be mortified’ (6:10). ‘This duty being always incumbent on us argues undeniably the abiding in us of a principle of sin whilst we are in the flesh.’ He quotes Galatians 5:17: ‘For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh.’ Or again, ‘By the entrance of grace into the soul, (sin) loseth its dominion, but not its being; its rule, but not its life’ (3:545). In other words, our first need as Christians is to know ourselves. ‘It is because so many of us think of self-examination as old-fashioned and morbid,’ says Dr. Packer, 'that we are hardly aware of indwelling sin at all’⁵. There are two schools of thought, still popular in some evangelical circles, which because they go astray over this basic assumption, end up by denying that mortification is a constant necessity, although they deny it for different reasons.

The first is what we can describe as the Perfectionist teaching, which tells us that as the result of an experience which is open to all Christians, sin can be totally eradicated from our nature in this life. Now this teaching is usually explained in terms of baptism of the Spirit subsequent to conversion, by which the Christian is entirely cleansed from sin. But altogether apart from any other texts, Romans 8:13 is sufficient to demonstrate the utter falsity of such a view. Owen refers to ‘the vain, foolish and ignorant disputes of men about perfect keeping of the commands of God, and being wholly and perfectly dead to sin’ (6:10). So Perfectionism was not unknown in Owen’s day, as it certainly is not in ours.

The second school of thought to which Owen’s teaching has special relevance is that which teaches the principle of counteraction. The second view rejects the Perfectionist claim completely, that sin can be entirely eradicated in the Christian. Instead, it teaches that by a second experience of surrender, we can attain to a position in which there is no more struggle or tension involved, a state in which even the desire to sin is no longer troublesome. Now this experience has been variously described as ‘the deeper life’, ‘the higher life’ or ‘the victorious life’, and it received its classic expression in the platform of the famous Keswick Convention. The idea is this, that as we cease from struggling against sin, and abide in Christ by faith, he will obtain the victory for us, so that all we have to do is to ‘Let go and let God’ as it is claimed. A famous American holiness teacher named Charles Trumbull put it like this in his book, The Life that Wins(published round about 1910): ‘I have learned that as I trust Christ for surrender, there need be no fighting against sin, but complete freedom from the power, and even the desire of sin.’

Sin is there, but dormant, kept in a state of suspended animation. That is the theory here taught. What does Owen say to that? ‘When sin lets us alone, we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be the most quiet . . . so ought our contrivance against it be vigorous at all times, even when there is least suspicion’ (6:11). So, according to Owen, the sinful nature which remains in us will constantly endeavour to express itself through the medium of the body and its faculties; hence the need of mortification. ‘Sin aims at the utmost’ he warns. ‘Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could. You know what it did to David.’ In Owen’s view, the clear assumption underlying Romans 8:13 is that although the believer must not, and need not fall into acts of sin, he will be plagued by desires to sin. Not only so, but so long as we are in the body, these desires are more or less permanently active, as the traitor within the very walls of ‘mansoul’ itself, to borrow from John Bunyan’s imagery in The Holy War.

The poet Dante put it another way. Turning his face and feet towards the sunlit mount of holiness, he saw ‘a leopard supple, lithe, exceeding fleet, whose skin full many a dusky spot did stain; nor did she from my face retreat, nay hindered so my journey on the way, that many a time I backward turned my feet’. The leopard was indwelling sin. Some years ago, a friend of the writer was present at a conference in which Dr. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary was taking part. Van Til was already in his seventies and in the question-and-answer session, someone asked him, ‘Dr. Van Til, isn’t there a sense in which as you get older, sins that once bothered you no longer do so?’ Van Til, his finger shaking, answered the question energetically: ‘Young man, that is incipient perfectionism. The greatest battles I have now are the sins of my youth!’

However, before we are exhorted to set about the work of mortification, or indeed to do anything, we need to grasp that the only way by which sin can be scripturally mortified is by the presence and the power of the indwelling Spirit of God. Having considered Owen’s basic assumption, we move on to our second principle:

THE AGENCY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Paul says, ‘If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.’ To put it in Owen’s own words, ‘the foundation of all mortification of sin is from the inhabitation of the Spirit within us’ (3:549) . . . ‘and by no other power is it to be brought about’ (6:7). He says, ‘The Holy Spirit is the author of the work in us, so that although it is our duty, it is his grace and strength whereby it is performed’ (3:547). This he does by ‘implanting in our minds and all their faculties a contrary habit and principle . . . [contrary to sin that is], namely a principle of spiritual life and holiness, bringing forth the fruits thereof’ (3:551) – and by those ‘supplies and assistances of grace which he continually communicates unto us’ (3:553).

Because mortification is carried out by means of the Spirit, this is a work of which the unbeliever is totally incapable. ‘An unregenerate man may do something like it,’ says Owen, ‘but the work itself, so as it may be acceptable to God, he can never perform.’

Negatively then, true mortification can never be accomplished by the imposition of human rules and regulations. How is it accomplished? Positively, the Holy Spirit enables us to mortify sin by creating and sustaining our union and communion with Christ, by applying his fulness to us, and not only strengthening us to resist temptation but causing our hearts to abound in grace and in those fruits of the Spirit which are contrary to the flesh.

Yet the Holy Spirit is not given apart from the means of grace. Rather, he is communicated through the means of grace. And therefore, says Owen, it is required of us that we look for supplies of grace ‘in all those ways and means whereby they are communicated; for although the Lord Christ giveth them freely and bountifully, yet our diligence in duty will give the measure in receiving them’ (3:554). And by duty, Owen refers to ‘prayer, mediation, reading, hearing of the Word, and other ordinances of divine worship’ (3:554). However, he mentions prayer particularly. 'It doth itself mightily prevail unto the weakening and destruction of sin.’ Or again: ‘the soul of a believer is never raised unto a higher delight in holiness, nor is more conformed to it than in prayer’ (3:560). That is where we start, says Owen, in effect; with the realisation that the Holy Spirit is in us as believers. In other words, we must know our resources, we must begin from a position of strength by realising what is already true of us as Christians.

However, the Spirit’s method is not to work mortification in us so as to bypass our activity but rather to enlist it. We are not spectators in the work but participants. This brings us to the third principle:

THE BELIEVER’S ACTIVITY

Mortification is a work in which the believer is fully taken up and involved. ‘If ye through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body,’ says Paul. There the Apostle brings together in a beautiful fusion the relationship between our activity and the Spirit’s power. Owen says that the Spirit ‘works upon our understanding, will, conscience and affections, but agreeably to their nature; he works in us, and with us, not against us or without us’ (6:20). He quotes Philippians 2:12-13: ‘Work out your own salvation . . . for it is God that worketh in you.’ The Spirit does not mortify sin for you, says Paul. You do the mortifying, but by the means of the Spirit’s enabling. Both of those false systems of holiness teaching to which we referred teach the exact opposite. They say we are passive in this work. One example drawn from the book So Great Salvation by Dr. Stephen Barabbus and written about 1950 will help us. It is accepted as the standard work on the historic Keswick teaching. With reference to our text, Romans 8:13, Barabbus makes this comment: ‘Deliverance is not attained by struggle and painful effort, by earnest resolution and self-denial.’ Instead, he says, the Christian is to ‘hand over the fleshy deeds of the body to the Spirit for mortification. He is then to stand in faith – it is the Spirit’s responsibility to do the rest.’

But according to John Owen, that is precisely what the text does not teach. The fact that God is working in you by his Spirit does not mean that you do not need to do anything. The truth is, it means just the opposite!

Now let us expand this point a little and let Owen speak for himself on the necessity of activity on our part. ‘In whomsoever the death of Christ is not the death of sins, he shall die in his sin’ (3:560). Or even more sternly, '[God] will deliver none from destruction that continue in sin’ (6:34). ‘The contest is for our lives,’ he says. He tells us why. Taking up Paul’s statement that if we ‘mortify the deeds of the body, we shall live’, Owen points out that mortification is urged on us as a condition of life. This is not because our activity provides the grounds of our salvation. Owen steers well clear of justification by works. It is because ‘God hath appointed this means for the attaining [of] that end which he hath freely promised.’ The relationship between our activity in mortification, and the attainment of life, is not a relationship of ‘cause and effect’ but of ‘means and ends’ (6:6). It is the way to ‘life’, spiritual well-being in this world, and eternal life in the world to come. ‘He who does not kill sin in his way,’ says Owen, ‘takes no steps towards his journey’s end’ (6:14). Therefore, if we would travel so as to arrive, we must mortify sin.

This is a vital issue confronting us, because Owen’s teaching at this point has come under attack from certain quarters as legalism, a form of salvation by works. For instance, Dr. R. T. Kendall committed himself to the following statement in his book Once Saved Always Saved: ‘I state categorically that a person who is saved will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work, or lack of work may accompany such faith. In other words, no matter what sin (or absence of Christian obedience) may accompany such faith’ (p. 43). Thus Dr. Kendall is teaching ‘once saved always saved’ no matter what you do, or how you live. But the question is, What do we mean by ‘Saved’? ‘Once saved, always saved.’ Certainly, so long as we remember that salvation is not a point only, but a line. Consequently, salvation to John Owen and the New Testament is never confined to deliverance from the penalty of sin – it always includes deliverance from the power of sin. It is as dangerous to rest on a justification unattended with holiness as it is to rest on a justification that has works for its basis (see W. S. Plumer on Romans 8). In other words, ‘once saved, always saved’, irrespective of mortification, is a contradiction in terms, because it sets up an impossible combination of things. The mortification of sin is an essential and an integral ingredient in the Christian life, and as such, is essential to salvation. It is not just an optional extra.

Not only is mortification a necessity: it is a continual necessity. As Owen points out, the verb in Romans 8:13 is in the present tense: ‘If ye keep on mortifying, ye shall live.’ Just as the principle of indwelling sin is a constant problem to the believer, so the putting to death of that principle is likewise always incumbent upon him. So there are no holidays in the spiritual realm for Owen. ‘Be always at it,’ he urges us. ‘Cease not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you’ (6:9). ‘He who ceases from this duty lets go all endeavours after holiness’ (3:541). And he adds: ‘Sin will not die, unless it be constantly weakened. Spare it, and it will heal its wounds and recover its strength. We must continually watch against the operation of this principle of sin; in our duties, in our calling, in conversation, in retirement, in our straits, in our enjoyments and in all that we do. If we are negligent on any occasion, we shall suffer by it; every mistake, every neglect is perilous.’

It comes to this, then, that mortification of sin is never an easy undertaking. Owen is realistic about this: ‘Men look upon it as an easy task, and as that which will be carried on with a little diligence. But is it for nothing that the Holy Spirit expresses it by “mortification” or “killing”? (3:541). We might add, ‘Is it for nothing that our Lord himself likened it to cutting off a hand, or gouging out an eye’ (Matt. 5:19-20). Carnal self does not want to die. And it will do all it can to stay alive. Nevertheless, die it must. ‘Unmortified sin will weaken the soul,’ says Owen, ‘divert it from close communion with God, fill the mind with thoughts of sin and hinder in spiritual duties, so that the saint will lose his comfort and assurance’ (6:22). In other words, happiness and holiness are inseparably joined together by God. And few things give more encouragement to the Christian than increasing victory over sins which once had victory over him.

It comes to this, that we are not passive in holiness, but active. ‘Holiness by faith in Jesus, not by effort in my own’ may sound very spiritual, but the trouble is, it is not scriptural. Mortification therefore is not the consecrating act of a moment but the persevering activity of a lifetime. May God help us all to realise that.

The fourth and last principle is this:

WHAT MORTIFICATION INVOLVES

We can divide this up under two aspects, negative and positive. Negatively, mortification means a refusal to allow sin to gain a foothold in our life by denying sinful self the sustenance it craves for. And in that connection Owen gives us nine preparatory directions. Here are some of the most significant of them:

(1) Aim for a clear sense of the guilt, danger and evil of sin, lest you grow ‘sermon-proof and sickness proof’ (6:52);

(2) Pray for a strong desire to be delivered from sin’s present power. ‘Assure thyself,’ says Owen, ‘that unless thou longest for deliverance, thou shalt not have it’ (6:60);

(3) Seek to recognise the things which are an occasion of sin to you and avoid them. ‘He that dares to dally with sin,’ he says, ‘will dare to sin’ (6:62). ‘Rise mightily against the first actings of sin’ (6:62).

These are some of the negatives. But Owen is insistent that this is never enough. So we turn briefly to the positive aspects. Here the essence of wisdom, according to Owen, is ‘the weakening of the flesh by the growth of positive graces’. ‘Let men take never so much pains to mortify, crucify, or subdue their sins,’ he says, ‘unless they endeavour in the first place to weaken and impair its strength by the increase of grace, they will labour in the fire, where their work will be consumed’ (3:543). Again: ‘the more vigorous the principle of holiness in us, the more weak, infirm and dying will be that of sin’. ‘The more we abound in the “fruits of the Spirit”, the less we shall be concerned in the work of the flesh’ (3:552). As the Christian walks in the Spirit, he is kept from fulfilling the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:17). Thomas Chalmers described this as ‘the explusive power of a new affection’.

Owen did not leave it there. Pastoral concern led him to consider how we may discern success in the work of mortification. Here he is particularly helpful. ‘We cannot test our mortification by such things as natural temper gives no vigour to. One man may be troubled by anger and passion as much during one day, as another all his life, by reason of constitution, yet the former may have done more to mortify sin than the latter. But if we try ourselves by self-denial, envy or some other spiritual sin, we will have a better view of ourselves’ (6:25). In other words, if you happen to be equable and even-tempered by disposition, the fact that you have not lost your temper for a long time is no proof at all of progress in mortification. Test yourself rather against those sins to which you are temperamentally and constitutionally inclined, he says.

This is a vital subject and one of great relevance at the present time. ‘The evident importance of the subject,’ says Dr. Packer, ‘makes the long-standing neglect of it among Christians appear both sad and odd.’⁶ The truth is that the subject we have been considering is much more closely linked to the present depressed state of evangelicalism than is generally realised. One contemporary writer put it like this:

It seems to us that possibly the most important current controversy in the church concerns the nature of true Christian experience. False or superficial teaching has given rise to the exaltation of a certain type of alleged experience as being the most desirable for all Christians . . . Because it begins at the wrong place, much current discussion on Christian experience is man-centred, concerning itself with our 'happiness' or 'power', rather than with moral conformity to God.⁷

In view of the emergence of the Charismatic movement, that danger exists today with a new urgency. Whether or not some of the charismata were temporary is beside the point here. The point is that according to the New Testament, there is no necessary connection between gifts and holiness. As our Lord made clear in those awesome words toward the close of the Sermon on the Mount, it is not those who prophesy or who cast out demons, or who perform miracles who will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who ‘do the will of the Father who is in heaven’ (Matt. 7:21).

Doing the will of God from the heart is therefore the immediate goal of all true Christian piety. To promote that great and glorious end was the purpose John Owen saw in his own ministry. He put it like this in a rare autobiographical comment in the preface to the treatise we have been considering. With this we may fitly leave the subject:

I hope I may own in sincerity, that my heart’s desire unto God, and the chief design of my life in the station wherein the good providence of God hath placed me, are, that mortification and universal holiness may be promoted in my own and in the hearts and ways of others, to the glory of God; that so the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be adorned in all things (6:4).

Notes:

1. This article originally formed part of a paper delivered to the 1985 Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches Study Conference. It also appeared inThe Banner of Truth magazine in June and July 1990 (issues 321 & 322). Notes 3 and 4 added.

2. K. F. W. Prior, The Way of Holiness (IVF, 1967), p. 114.

3. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Romans Chapter 8.5-17: The Sons of God (Banner of Truth, 1974). This point is emphasised by Lloyd-Jones several times throughout Chapters 8-11.

4. References to Owen's Works are to the 16-volume Goold edition reprinted by Banner of Truth 1965-1968, in particular to Volume 3, The Holy Spirit and Volume 6, Temptation and Sin. References will be shown by the Volume Number:Page Number, for example 6:20 = Volume 6, page 20.

5. God’s Words, p. 182.

6. ibid., p. 181.

7. I. H. Murray in The Banner of Truth magazine, issue 253, October 1984, p. 6.

The Nature of a Christian Man: In Union With Chist

2011-12-24T08:17:00.000-06:00

Is the believer in Christ a sinner or a saint? Does grace make him more and more righteous, less and less sinful? Are the good works of a Spirit-filled man still defiled with human imperfection and sin?
Rome and the Reformers were agreed that man was born with a corrupt, sinful nature, although the Reformation did have a much clearer view of the radical nature of human corruption.

The medieval church thought of grace as being infused to change and transform the sinful nature of man. By this transforming change within him, the believer was said to be made just in God's sight. Then, as he received more and more grace, the believer was said to become less and less sinful and at the same time more and more just in the sight of God. Good works were done in the believer by the indwelling of Christ and, because of this, were thought to be entirely pleasing and acceptable to God.

Rome held out to men the possibility of becoming pure and sinless "Saints" (ontological perfection), and those who attained this perfection reached "Sainthood" and were qualified to enter heaven at the hour of death. Those who did not become perfect and absolutely sinless in the flesh would need to go to purgatory after death and thus be made completely just and qualified to enter heaven.
On the other hand, the Reformers said that God justifies the ungodly who believe on Christ (Rom. 4: 5), and that God covers the sinner with the mantle of Christ's righteousness. Therefore the believer is accepted as just and righteous, not because of grace or righteousness poured into him, but because of the righteousness placed upon Him by the imputation of Christ's sinless life. There is no such thing as the believer becoming more and more just, said the Reformers, for he is fully just before God. There are no degrees of righteousness with God. Either a man is fully righteous with Him or not righteous at all. Man is either accepted fully or not at all. Thus the relative stance of Romanism was utterly rejected.

Furthermore, said the Protestants, grace does not change the sinful nature of the believer. The sinful nature is so desperately wicked that it cannot be reformed by all efforts with or without grace. This nature will always be sinful as long as life shall last, and whether a man is a Christian or not makes no change in the "sinful flesh." But, said the Reformers, the Holy Spirit brings to the justified sinner a new nature, even a new man which is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24). A Christian therefore has two natures. The old nature is called "flesh" because it is born of the flesh; the new nature is called "spirit" because it is born of the Spirit (John 3:6). Furthermore, these two natures are contrary one to the other. Says the apostle Paul, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Gal. 5:17. And in a parallel passage he describes the reality of two natures within a justified saint:

"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Rom. 7:15-:25.

To the Reformers there was no such thing as the believer becoming more and more just; neither did the believer's old nature become less and less sinful. Luther coined a Latin expression to describe the nature of a Christian man: simul justus et pecator (at the same time righteous and sinful).

A Christian does not live by trying to reform the flesh, much less by purifying the flesh from its corruption; but he gets above it and walks in a new state in Christ. This is the theme of Paul's thought in Romans 8. The believer does not live "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit." That is, he follows the desires, promptings and dictates of the Spirit; and by His indwelling power he denies, fights and puts to death the desires and inclinations of the flesh. In this way the Christian is called to a life of suffering (Rom. 8:10-18; 1 Peter 4:1, 2), to constant warfare against the sinful nature. The Spirit is not given to release him from painful conflict but to sustain him in successful conflict until the end.

"… ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." Rom. 8:23-25.

Thus, the believer is always a saint, always a sinner. In Christ he is fully righteous; in himself, by reason of the sinful nature, he is fully sinful. He has peace, but it is in the midst of war; he has rest, but it is with tribulations.

Then too, the Reformers had a very different view from the medieval church on the matter of a Christian's good works. God must first accept our persons, they said, quite apart from any of our works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4-6). Whereas the medieval church taught that God accepts men's persons because of their works (done with God's help of course!), the Reformers declared that God accepts our works because He has accepted our persons through faith in the Substitute.

No good work of the saints is entirely without sin, said Luther and Calvin many times. True, God's Spirit causes Christians to do good works, but the sinful nature of man corrupts all these works with the taint of human imperfection, said they. Good works are accepted only by mercy and by the intercession of Christ's merit at the right hand of God. Neither our persons nor our works are ever perfect, declared the Reformers, but our perfection, righteousness and entire satisfaction to the law reside only in and with our Head.

There is no fulfillment in human experience in this life. Our righteousness with God is only by faith and not by the reality of our own experience. Christ is our righteousness, and His person is not here on earth but in heaven. Now we are righteous by faith; but hope looks to the coming of Christ when we shall be altogether righteous by nature as the angels. Faith pertains to the "now," hope to the "not yet." Faith looks to the cross and what has been done for us; hope looks to the glorious future that will be ushered in at Christ's return. Hope refreshes faith in this waiting period between the first and second coming of Christ. Faith restrains hope from trying to bring the "not yet" into the "now." By faith the Christian knows that sin, the sinful nature, death and Satan are already vanquished; but he still feels sin within, the devil without, and sees death on every hand. If this were not so, there would be no need to fight the good fight of faith.

But by the Spirit he waits and groans for the day when sin, death and the devil will be abolished as threatening, visible foes.

From; Present Truth Magazine....vol 4.....article 5

Old Man Dead?

2011-12-20T19:31:00.000-06:00

Here is an article about our old and new natures, that as believers we still must contend with.

Question

Is our old self really dead once we become a Christian, or is it still alive and kicking? Most historic Calvinist such as Calvin, Bavinck and others hold that the old self and new self are aspects of the believer. (Rom.6:6, Col.3:9, Eph.4:22,24 and elsewhere.) John Murray didn't hold this view but said that the old self was speaking about the unregenerate. What do you say about this?

Answer

I line up with the majority of Reformed thinkers in believing that the old self is still a part of us, co-existing in a less-than-peaceful relationship with the new self. That being said, many good men are on the other side of the issue. I would also add that despite our differences of opinion on this matter of interpretation, and on the biblical use of the vocabulary of "new man," "old man," etc., our theology is really very similar. We all believe that everyone still sins, and that we all need forgiveness and sanctification on an ongoing basis. We all know experientially that it is hard to avoid temptation, and that sometimes it seems irresistible. We all believe we won't be perfected until Jesus returns, and that until then we are corruptible and corrupted. We all agree that we are influenced by sin through the world, the flesh and the devil. In short, there is not a great deal of substantive difference between the two camps, although there are certainly some that are worth noting, such as the way we go about thinking about sin and forgiveness, and particularly about conquering "besetting sins."

In general, I would say that those who believe that the old self is dead and gone argue largely on theological grounds, whereas those who believe the old self is still an active force argue on largely exegetical grounds. I know that is a gross oversimplification, but it does seem to me that some of the language on this subject is rather direct, and that the only way to come to the minority view is to defer to one's theology over against what appears to me to be the fairly plain reading of the text. Let me give you a specific example: Romans 7:14-25. This is one of the greatest passages of debate in this issue. I have a rather extensive answer online dealing with this passage, if you are interested (Q&A).

In answer to some of the specific passages you have mentioned, Romans 6:6ff. does not appear to me to state that the old man is dead and gone. Paul was speaking here of three states of existence, not two.

First, our old self was crucified with Christ when we came to faith. We were crucified by virtue of our union with Christ in his death. The purpose of this was, in part, to free us from sin and its bondage. But the bondage Paul had in mind seems primarily to have been to the effects of sin, not to the present power of sin ("not under law but under grace," Rom. 6:14).

Second, we have been united to Christ in his resurrection, and we currently live in him. But we do not yet live in him in the way we will in the future -- we have yet to be glorified as he is. When that happens, we will be perfectly free from sin's influence.

Third, in the meantime, we have been crucified with Christ, and we have been raised with him spiritually but not physically. We are in process. In our current state, it is a struggle to keep sin from reigning in our "mortal body" (Rom. 6:12; cf. "weakness of your flesh," 6:19). Paul's point seems to be that we have died with Christ, but because our bodies have not been glorified, we have not yet begun to live with him fully.

So, our old man is counted or reckoned as dead (Rom. 6:11), even though he isn't yet gone. This is very similar to the way that believers are counted as perfectly righteous and sinless in Christ, even though we have not yet actually been made perfectly righteous and sinless. The difference between our past experience and our present experience is that whereas we had only the old man in us before, so that we could only sin, we now have the new man as well, so that we can struggle against sin and sometimes win.

Colossians 3:9 presents a similar case. We have "laid aside the old self" in some sense, but we have not entirely put it away from us. If we had entirely put it away, there would be no reason for Paul to exhort us to sinless behavior, for we would already be sinless. But that is not the case. We are not yet completely renewed; we are in the process of "being renewed" (Co. 3:10). If we are not yet completely renewed, then there are some things in us that have not yet been renewed. And if they have not yet been renewed, then they are "old."

Ephesians 4:22-24 seems to me to be a rather direct statement of what I have been arguing. In verse 22 Paul says that the old self "is being corrupted." That is, the old self is still alive and kicking, and it is still in the process of subjecting itself to sin.

Notice also that in this context (as in the other passages), Paul's exhortation to put on the new self is not directed toward regeneration or resurrection. Rather, even though it is based on the fact of regeneration, the action itself is ceasing from sin and beginning to do good works. But again, if we only had the new self, these activities would be natural and unavoidable, just as if we only had the old self, evil works would be natural and unavoidable. The fact that we have the potential for both indicates that we have a nature that is capable of both, or to put it another way, we have two natures, one which is subjected to sin and one which is subjected to righteousness (cf. Gal. 5:17).

A very common rebuttal from the minority camp is that sin is just a habit; it is not reflective of the continued existence of the old man. But this seems to me to cast our new selves in a very poor light. First, how does a new man have any habitual remnants of sin? A new man should have no past record of sin, and no sinful habits. Those habits belong to the old man. And how do new sinful habits form? How does one who is saved from near-infancy grow up to commit adultery? And if our new man is perfectly willing to sin, what kind of salvation from sin do we really have? What's so "new" about a self that, although being free from its prior corruption, is ready, willing and able to dive into new corruption? It seems to me that the "new self" of the minority position is not nearly as good as the new self of Scripture.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin

M.Div., Webmaster and V.P. of Curriculum, Third Millennium Ministries

Is Faith a Work?

2011-12-19T20:34:00.002-06:00

Can Faith Ever Be Considered a Work?

As noted in several texts of Scripture, faith and works are contrasted so as to show that we must repent of trusting in our good works and place our faith in Jesus alone for our salvation. For example, in Romans chapter four it reads, "Now to the one who works, his wages are nout counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted a righteousness." But since, according to Scripture, faith is impossible without the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), the question is, are there any unbiblical assumptions or presentations of faith which could erroneously make it into a work? In other words, is it possible to incorrectly present faith as to rely on its own native ability and, therefore, not "rest on grace" (Rom 4:16)?
J.I. Packer once wisely commented that "...sinners cannot obey the gospel, any more than the law, without renewal of heart."
In light of this clear biblical truth, we confess that our regeneration or new birth in Christ is monergistic (a work of God alone) and not synergistic (i.e. a cooperation of man and God in regeneration). This means that our faith in Christ itself arises out of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to change and soften our heart's natural hostile disposition toward God. We likewise affirm that only by upholding monergistic regeneration do we faithfullly herald the biblical doctrine of 'Sola Gratia', or salvation by grace alone. All other schemes in which unregenerate man either takes the initiative or cooperates to be regenerated (by a faith produced from their native ability), should be considered synergistic and contrary to grace alone. Some may be unhappy with being called a 'synergist' because it implies that they believe man and God work together toward salvation which clearly is a form of semi-pelagianism. So to defend themselves many synergists may respond to this charge as follows:

"Why do you call our belief that faith precedes regeneration synergistic? How can this be, unless faith is understood to be a work? Faith is not a meritorious work, by definition. In essence, the two are mutually exclusive. Accepting a gift is not a work, therefore it can't be considered synergism. If salvation is by faith, then works are nowhere to be found in the process. Again, to argue that faith precedes regeneration is synergistic would only be valid if faith = works."

I might respond to this line of reasoning by saying something like the following:
You are correct that the Bible teaches that faith is not a work and, in fact, contrasts these two as polar opposites, but, I would argue that we make faith into a work as soon as we view it as something we can autonomously come up with, apart from any work of the Holy Spirit. (Prevenient grace does not resolve this problem as I will show later) Those who believe we can, from our own resources (and native ability), change our unregenerate hardened hearts in some way that is independent of God are promoting rank Pelagianism. I would encourage you to ask yourself, in light of Scripture, can you believe the gospel apart from ANY work of the Holy Spirit? (see 1 Thes 1:4,5). God indeed commands us to come to Him but the problem is that unregenerate man is naturally faithless. The reason for this is that he is, by nature, unspiritual (i.e. w/o the Holy Spirit). Among other things this means that we cannot grasp spiritual truth without the Holy Spirit to change our heart and illumine our mind. To claim we can do this by nature would be a contradiction, for spirituality is a condition of spiritual understanding. In 1 Cor 2:12 Paul affirms this by writing, "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." ( i.e. the gospel). That is why through the prophet Jeremiah, God makes the promise, "I will heal your faithlessness" (Jer 3:22). With this in mind do you think we can heal our own faithlessness?
The question we need to be asking ourselves is, "what makes us to differ from other men who do not believe?" ... the grace of God in Christ or the will of man? If we say "the will of man" it is a boast and therefore not the kind of faith that is contrasted with works in the Bible. For Eph 2:8,9 speaks of faith that is the gift of God, a faith which leaves no room for boasting. True faith is seen as God's merciful gift (John 6:5) which then looks away from its own resources and looks unto Christ for all spiritual blessings, including the very ability to believe. This is utterly distasteful to the natural man, not to mention humbling. And as Spurgeon said, "...no one natually submits to the humbling terms of the gospel". Elsewhere to strengthen this point Spurgeon said,

"...did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity."

In the synergists' understanding, what ultimately makes us to differ from unbelievers is the will of man, not the grace of God. For, in that system, God has given all men an equal amount of prevenient grace, but men still differ in their response, so God's blessing hinges upon a condition we meet, our action, our wisdom, our innate spiritual sensitivity. But it was for this very reason God sent His Son, to do for us what we could not do for ourselves, (that is, including providing us with the spiritual resources to meet God's demand of faith and repentance.).
What makes men to differ according to the synergist, therefore, is not grace and not Jesus Christ, for, to them, all have grace, so the difference is how one man makes use of that grace better than another. Grace no longer, therefore, has anything to do with it, for ultimately it depends on a fallen person creating a right thought or affection about Christ thus believing in our ability to believe in Him. That our moral inability to exercise faith, due to a corruption of nature, does not itself need to be redeemed. Why, then, do some believe but not others? In answer to this most synergists say to me "because some believed" ... but notice that we did not ask what they did, but why they did it.
This is not some side discussion but the very core reason for the Protestant reformation. Michael Haykin once noted that

"It is wrong to suppose that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that storm center of the Reformation, was the crucial question in the minds of such theologians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. This doctrine was important to the Reformers because it helped to express and to safeguard their answer to another, more vital, question, namely, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christs' sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith."

This is a wholly biblical doctrine. In John 10 Jesus himself said some do not believe BECAUSE they are not My sheep, and "My sheep hear my voice". Who they are in essence, therefore, precedes how they respond. Jesus explains this in detail when he says that Spirit gives birth to spirit but flesh gives birth to flesh...for this reason I said that no man can come to me UNLESS God grants it (John 6:63, 65). To believe in Christ God must grant it, and further, the Bible says ALL to whom God grants it, will believe (John 6:37).
Again, it is true that the Bible contrasts faith and works, but biblical faith is never seen as something we, in our unregenerate condition, had to autonomously (apart form the invincible power of the Holy Spirit) contribute. To the synergist, there are certain aspects of salvation that they are unable to thank God for. For example, can the synergist thank God for his faith? The only way for him to be consistent with his beliefs is to pry the following, "God I thank you for your salvation, except for my faith, the one thing I exercised on my own." Or consider another prayer, "Thank you Lord I am not like other men who do not have faith. While you extended prevenient grace to all men, some did not make use of it, BUT I DID." Such boasting, whether unconsciously or not is the result of believing that what makes you to differ from others is not God's grace but your faith. But the work of Christ redeems us unto faith, not on the condition of faith.
In the synergists' system, all men have grace, but only some have faith, yet because that faith does not comes from God's gift (since not all men have faith), is therefore, something we produce naturally on our own, apart from the Holy Spirit. That is why, after the Rich Young Ruler when away sad when called to repent and follow Jesus, the Lord answered his disciples' question "who then can be saved" with "what is impossible with man [i.e. faith and repentance] is possible with God."
Most of you who visit this site are convinced that the Bible teaches that salvation is by the grace of Jesus Christ alone, that is, that man and God do not cooperate in salvation. Most would further affirm that faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature but comes about as the result of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit who turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh, opens our spiritually blind eyes and unplugs our deaf ears to the gospel. We believe the gospel can only be heard by those God has spiritually granted to hear it (John 6:63, 65). This is not only what the Bible teaches from beginning to end, but this safeguards the reality that all glory goes to God for our salvation.
We affirm that our blindness and deafness to the gospel cannot be changed by mere human persuasion, (just as light itself does not make a blind man see) but rather it is by God doing a work of grace in our heart to change our naturally hostile disposition to one of love for Christ. We believe the Bible teaches this because, without the Holy Spirit, the natural man does not understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) but thinks of them as foolish. He naturally loves darkness and hates the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19, 20) The human will as a 'slave to sin' does not, therefore, by liberty obtain saving grace, but by saving grace obtains liberty.
I would like to leave you with the following bit of the Hebrew Scripture: Sometimes in the Old Testament and the New, God reveals behind the scenes how He enabled particular persons to obey his Word when they were called to repent: In 2 Chronicles chapter 30 when couriers with a message of repentance passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, those who heard laughed them to scorn and mocked them when they were called to repent,

"Nevertheless [the Bible says] some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD." (2 Chronicles 30:11-12)

The text says some resisted the call, but all those tribes which the hand of God gave a heart to obey the Word, repented.
-J.W. Hendryx
Monergism.com

The Work of Regeneration

2011-12-15T09:44:00.001-06:00

The Work of Regeneration

C. Craig Wells

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one

is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (ESV)

The title of this article implies that regeneration does a work. This is a true statement, for regeneration is what makes a person alive. Unger’s says, “The spiritual change wrought in man by the Holy Spirit, by which he becomes the possessor of a new life. It is to be distinguished from justification, because justification is a change in our relation to God, whereas regeneration is a change in our moral and spiritual nature.” (1) From this definition, we can state that regeneration is a work done to a person in bringing that person to a new life and that the Holy Spirit does this work.

I guess we can conclude with this article since we have defined “the work of regeneration”. Not so, there is much more to say. The real question concerning the work of regeneration is when regeneration takes place. What is the role of man verses God in regeneration? Is regeneration the source from which our faith comes or is regeneration due to faith? That is the real question! What are the implications for either one?

Where can we find the word regeneration in the bible? Regeneration is in the KJV twice, in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. Jesus is talking of His resurrection to the throne in His glory in Matthew. Titus is the only verse that really uses the word in reference to a washing or renewing of a person. The ESV only uses the word in Titus.

As we can see, the word regeneration is very limited in the scriptures. So, where did the term “work of regeneration” come from? Like many terms used to describe God and His nature, such as Trinity or sovereignty, are not in scripture, at least the KJV. However, the church from its beginning used these terms to describe the nature of God or His work as the scripture reveals them. So, where are the scriptures that reveal that regeneration is the renewal of man done by the Spirit? Do these scriptures say when regeneration takes place?

John 3:1-14 is a well-known scripture describing the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. There are tons of Theologians, Scholars, and Commentators of the scriptures, which conclude that these passages describe the work of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the person to a new life. There are great commentaries out there and would recommend you read them. However, I will make a feeble attempt to explain this passage in the limited space I have.

Jesus, in verse 3, responds to a comment by Nicodemus in verse 2. Read those two verses. Have you asked something of another person and that person answers back with something you think is totally unrelated? You had to think, where did that come from? Do you think Nicodemus did the same here? Nicodemus was describing who he thought Jesus was. Nicodemus called him a rabbi, a teacher from God, and said that a person could not do the works that Jesus did unless God was with him.

We do not know for sure, but from the context of verses 1 and 2, it seems that Nicodemus was seeking to find out if Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the scriptures. I am sure he was seeking a direct and explicit answer. Nicodemus really did not know to whom he was talking! God was not just with him; Jesus is King and God incarnate. Jesus’ response in verse 3 is nothing more than an explanation as to why Nicodemus did not know Him. Jesus said, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God”. Nicodemus could not see God standing directly in front of him, because he was blind to the truth. In fact, he had to be born again.

Verse 5 says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” This is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25. This is the direct link connecting regeneration to the Spirit. Verse 6 even makes the case stronger. It says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This verse is very significant in relation to the nature of man. Flesh in this passage describes man in his natural state due to the fall in Eden. Man is born spiritually dead. The next part of the verse implies this. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”, can only mean one thing, in the flesh, man is dead spiritually and cannot do anything which enables him to see or enter the Kingdom of God. Due to the work of the Spirit, we become spiritual, where before we were not. The words born again indicate that we are a new creature with a new nature due to the creator of such a renewal, the Spirit. To see the spiritual things of God in the gospel message, we have to become spiritual and that is due to the work of the Spirit. We have to receive spiritual eyes to see and spiritual ears to hear the spiritual things of God. (2)

Titus 3:5 is another passage of scripture that directly links regeneration to the Spirit. Here it refers to washing as John 3:5 does. Here, it is washing of regeneration that makes us clean. We cannot cleanse ourselves or make ourselves righteous, even by doing righteous deeds. It also says that a renewal takes place and that by the Spirit. It says, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy”. What about our faith, is it considered a work? No, but we are saved through faith and not according to our faith. However, the verse does say it is according to his mercy. Our salvation is through our faith from the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit to which once made alive, we can believe the gospel as truth.

How can I say that regeneration comes before faith? I want to make clear that from the scriptures, a defense of such a claim is not explicit. Otherwise, there would not be a debate over the issue. However, the implications abound all through the scriptures. We must start with the nature of man and its implications. We must clarify what ability or inability man has due to his natural state.

The best place to start is Ephesians 2. It says that we are dead in trespasses and sin. (3) To what extent is this dead in trespasses and sin? Verse 2 says that we once walked in trespasses and sin, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience. (4) The sons of disobedience are the people who are not children of God.

Verse 3 says that we once walked among those very people that are not children of God. (5) Before we were a child of God, we were following the spirit of disobedience. Verse 3 also says that we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. By nature, we followed the prince of the power of the air living in the passions of the flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind. We are incapable to change our nature. The scriptures say that an Ethiopian cannot change his skin nor can a leopard change its spots. (6) How can we change our nature, if scripture describes us as dead in sin? We know that that does not mean we are physically dead. It can only mean dead spiritually and from the context, it is clear that includes the entire human race.

Verse 5 is a very important verse to help put all this together. (7) Who made us alive together in Christ when we were dead in trespasses? It was God, being rich in mercy. We were dead spiritually and had no ability to do anything spiritual, especially receive the spiritual message of the gospel. God does the work by making us alive by the work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration. We did not believe unto salvation before the regeneration by the Spirit. Why or how could it? If our salvation were according to our faith, which indicates life, there would not be any need for regeneration if it came after faith. We then would have something to boast. God made us alive when we were dead not when we had faith.

In Ephesians 2:8, it says that we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of our own. It also says that it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so no one can boast. People will argue when the verse says, “And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works”, that it does not refer to the faith but to salvation. They say salvation and not faith is the gift of God. I tend to agree after careful study of the passage using resources, such as Greet dictionaries.

However, it does not matter to me, because ultimately it is the work of God. The faith this verse relates to is not going to come about unless the Spirit of God makes that person alive. Regeneration has to take place for a person to receive the gospel and have faith unto salvation. That faith does belong to that person and it came about due to his or her own volition, however, it would not have happened if God had not changed the person’s nature first. Matthew 16:17, John 1:3, and John 6:63 are more verses that are comparable. I wish I could discuss these verses as well, but I am limited in space.

Colossians 2:13 is another verse that indicates the same thing. This verse also says that we are dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of our flesh. Verse 11 says, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands”. The Spirit does not circumcise the heart after we come to faith. Why would He if we could resurrect our own spiritual being and believe without any outside help? Verse 13 says that God made us alive together with Him. God makes us alive through the circumcision made by the Spirit. This is the only way we can believe.

To deny that regeneration is before faith, denies the need for the Holy Spirit unto salvation. It will limit the work of the Spirit to strictly sanctification. The Triune God works in our salvation. God the Father, who has chosen us before the foundation of the world, calls us. God the Son died on the cross as satisfaction for the requirements of the law, vindicating God’s righteousness and justice to those who believe on Christ. God the Spirit regenerates us, by giving us a new nature, which enables us to believe unto salvation. Who can boast? Indirectly, faith is even a gift. Without regeneration, there would be no faith.

*************************************************************************************

(1) New Unger’s Bible Dictionary

(2) Isaiah 6:20

(3) Ephesians 2:1

(4) Ephesians 2:2

(5) Ephesians 2:3

(6) Jeremiah 13:23

(7) Ephesians 2:5

Saved Through Faith

2011-12-14T10:44:00.003-06:00

Saved Through Faith

C. Craig Wells

“For by grace you have been saved through faith.

And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” Eph 2:8 (ESV)

The above verse is a well-known verse; however, have you ever asked why it states that salvation is “through faith” and not “by faith”? The New Testament has the words “through” and “faith” in the same sentence thirty-three times. They are side-by-side, as “through faith” fifteen times. The majority of those fifteen verses deal with salvation.

The reason why I bring attention to this is due to my browsing a book by Loraine Boettner. (1) He wrote, “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved”. Did that get your attention! I had read this book several years ago and had even underlined the sentence. It did cause me to rethink through it again.

Boettner does qualify his statement by identifying faith as the instrumental cause verses the meritorious cause. He further states that Paul never states in the scriptures that faith is on “account of faith”, which would indicate merit.

This is what brought me to Ephesians 2:8. Even after that, I remembered reading another book, which made a similar statement. I finally found it after digging through my books and it was in John Murray’s book “Redemption Accomplished and Applied”. (2) He states, “It is to be remembered that the efficacy of faith does not reside in itself. Faith is not something that merits the favour of God. All the efficacy unto salvation resides in the Saviour.”

Murry goes further when he says, “it is not faith that saves but faith in Jesus Christ; strictly speaking, it is not even faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith”. That is another hard statement. These men are not fly by night theologians. What are we to make of this? Can we back this up with Scripture? Does Ephesians 2:8 describe these statements or at least to some degree?

I have always believed that faith was simple and yet complex. What do I mean by that? Well, Faith is simple, simple enough so that a child can have saving faith. However, it is complex by how we describe faith. For example, knowledge is necessary in saving faith, for we cannot trust one with such importance as life and death hanging over us without knowing that person, which we have entrusted for our safety. That trust is dependent on the amount of that knowledge. (3)

Knowledge is necessary for faith, but it is not sufficient in itself for faith unto salvation. We can know the truths concerning Christ and His work done on the cross. We can know the scriptures in its entirety concerning God’s redemptive plan in Christ, but still not trust our very souls to Christ.

Assent is also necessary for faith. We can know the principles concerning God; however, there must be conviction that that knowledge concerning Christ is true. Assent is necessary for faith, but it is not enough for salvation on its own.

I have all ready alluded to trust above. Trust is the component necessary of faith that is foremost. Trust is what makes faith, faith. Trust is what completes knowledge and assent of the principles of redemption in Christ.

Our faith is nothing that can merit favor from God. No matter how much knowledge and assent we have to the truth, the efficacy of faith unto salvation is in Christ alone. It is by His merit that we have favor from God. We have to come to the realization that within ourselves, we are nothing, have nothing, and hope in nothing. We must totally look away from ourselves and turn our whole being over to Christ. We cannot trust in Christ partially. He demands all. You commit idolatry anytime you put anything before God. You commit idolatry anytime you trust in yourself or in anything else before trust in God for providing for your needs. Of course, we have to know what truly our need is!

The greatest and second commandment encompasses this fact. (4) We are to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, and soul and at the same time, love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus said that all the law and prophets depend on those two commands. We are not to love anyone or anything above God. We are not to love ourselves above anyone else or to say it another way, not love anyone else less than the love of ourselves. If you love or depend on anything else other than God for your pleasure, joy, rest, peace, health, finances, family, love, and affections, it is idolatry. If you do not have these in your life, you at least covet them.

God commands us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is not the case when it comes to our fallen nature. Our ambitions are selfish. (5) We are lovers of self. (6) We are just plain selfish. (7) Even deeds done in benevolence are due to seeking selfish desires when the act of benevolence is outside of the love for neighbor and God.

God has not commanded anything that is not the best for us. You want joy, peace, love, and security, seek God first and all these things will be given you. (8) What are our goals in life? Our goal in life is not to lay up treasures for ourselves here on earth, but to strive for treasures in heaven. (9) Jesus tells us that we cannot serve two masters at once. (10) So, all we have to do is seek God. It is simple. It may be simple, but not easy.

It is not easy because, the scriptures say that man does not seek after God. (11) This is because of man’s fallen nature. Adam had communion with God even though God is spirit and Adam was man. Adam was spiritually able to commune directly with God. Since the fall, Adam and his decedents after him do not have the spiritual ability to know God, much less commune with Him. (12)

The scriptures also tell us that the Spirit of Truth reveals the truth pertaining to God. However, it says that the world cannot receive Him. (13) The scriptures say that the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit because they are foolishness to him. (14) Ephesians 2:1 says that we are dead in our trespasses. (15) If that is the case, how can anyone know God, if we are accustomed to do evil and we cannot change our nature as the scriptures state? (16)

The scriptures say that we are dead, and we all know that cannot mean physical death, and therefore need a resurrection. There needs to be a spiritual resurrection to make our dead spiritual nature come alive. Once that happens, we then come to see God and His glory, His holiness. Once we see God for how He truly is, we then look inward as comparison and can only see how inadequate and unholy we really are.

This is what causes us to cry out in mercy. This is how we are able to respond to the gospel message. It is in this state that we can respond to the call for redemption through the cross of Christ. We can only see hope of being right with God through the sacrificial atonement made by the blood of Christ. The scriptures say that the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but it is the power of God to those that are being saved. (17)

All of the above detail to explain saved through faith. It is the work of God that we believe in the gospel. (18) Our trust is not in our faith, but in the blood of Jesus. Christ saves us through our faith. We have nothing to commend ourselves to God to merit His favor, not even our faith. Our merit is strictly in the merit of Christ. Our trust is only in Him. The Spirit made us alive so that we can believe. The only way we can see the holiness of God and trust in Christ for our redemption, is by the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating our hearts, making us spiritually alive to be able to see the things of God.

Our faith is all-important for salvation. Just remember that we must make sure that our faith is just not knowledge alone or assent alone. We must put our full trust in Christ and Him alone. This is not a partial trust either. It is all or none! Jesus tells us what will happen to those that do not put their full trust in Him, no matter how much knowledge we have of Him or how much we agree to the principles of redemption through Christ. (19)

”But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2 Thess 2:13-15 (ESV)

****************************************************************

(1) The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Loraine Boettner, pg 101

(2) Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murry, pg 112

(3) Ephesians 1:17

(4) Matthew 22:36-40

(5) James 3:14-16

(6) 2 Timothy 3:1-5

(7) Philippians 2:3-4

(8) Matthew 6:33

(9) Matthew 6:19-21

(10) Matthew 6:24

(11) Romans 3:11

(12) Romans 5:12

(13) John 14:17

(14) 1 Corinthians 2:14

(15) Ephesians 2:1

(16) Jeremiah 13:23

(17) 1 Corinthians 1:18

(18) John 1:9-13

(19) Matthew 7:21-23

Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will

2011-12-10T18:48:00.000-06:00

Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free WillA critique of "Why I am not a Calvinist" by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell
by John W. Hendryx

In a recent essay I explained that in order to begin moving out of the present state of chaos in the church that we need to subvert many of the false narratives borrowed from the world that have taken hold of us. The intent of this essay is to dismantle one of these core inconsistent narratives in light of Holy Scripture and replace it with a consistent and biblical one. I will propose that one of the most dominant reasons for the current downgrade in the Church is the presuppositional lens through which Scripture is read called “libertarian freedom”. To begin to understand the full extent of the crisis we must begin here. As we define and then closely explore the problems with libertarian free will we will not only expose its outright errors but perhaps even more importantly, its inconsistencies which may have previously gone unnoticed by some. This will help us all think more clearly and replace the unbiblical with the biblical. So without further ado, let’s define the issues.

Who are the Libertarians?

The libertarians include Socinians, Molinists, Arminians, Open Theists and a growing number of Evangelicals.

What is Libertarian Free Will?

Freedom as understood in the libertarian sense means that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. All free will theists hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Responsibility, in their view, always means that we could have done otherwise. This is what libertarians themselves confess as you will see in the following 3-part definition from Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell in their popular book Why I am not a Calvinist:

(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”

(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.

(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”

Finally, in a very revealing admission, Wall and Dongell end their definition of libertarian freedom by asserting that to prove the validity of libertarian free will “…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.” By their own admission, then they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture. Walls and Dongell contest that Calvinists no less must also rely on philosophy to demonstrate the truthfulness of their positions. However, this is a notion which I will decisively refute later in the discussion by showing the Scriptural basis for the position that there is always, of necessity, a reason for the choices we make, especially moral choices (compatiblism).

Libertarians, therefore, when asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. Clark Pinnock, a well-known defender of this position, asserted that only the kind of freedom, which has the ability to choose the contrary, is genuine freedom. He says, “It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forces---nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise.” (Most Moved Mover pg. 127) In other words, within libertarianism, we could acceptably choose to receive Christ apart from a desire to receive Him.

Now lets look at the opposing position called compatibilism.

What is Compatibilism?

Compatibilism is the belief that God's predetermination is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). Our choices are also determined by our greatest inclinations. Compatibilism affirms that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without coercion), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism. The Scripture itself testifies that

“…no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:42-45)

Figtrees, of necessity, grow figs, not thorns. According to Jesus, then, nature produces a necessary result or fruit at the exclusion of something else. One cannot produce a result that is contrary to nature. While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies thatit is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional, as I will further demonstrate later in the essay.

So now for the reasons why libertarian free will falls short of revelation.

11 Problems with Libertarian Free Will

(1)   According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached?  If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.” There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage.  Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man ishostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15). But if it is always within the libertarian ability of the human will to believe, as they claim, then again, what purpose is there for the Holy Spirit while hearing? Doesn’t this reveal that they actually do believe we normally exercise choice according to the corruption of nature? [We must note, as an aside, that the Epistle to the Romans testifies that even those who have not heard the gospel know enough from general revelation to condemn them because “what is known about God is evident within them” and they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18-20).]  By all accounts, then, no true Christian believes that a person has libertarian free will to believe the gospel apart to any work of the Holy Spirit.

But, having deduced that libertarian free will must still be true, libertarians believe they resolve this problem by inventing a logical scheme (nowhere found in the gospels) where God grants something to all who hear the gospel called prevenient grace, which temporarily removes the sin nature by allegedly placing sinners in a pre-fall-like state where they have libertarian freedom to either chose or reject Christ, a choice undetermined by any desires or nature. Thus, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. To grace we must add the choice of the unregenerate will.  While we heartily agree with libertarians in the necessity of preaching for salvation so that the Holy Spirit can germinate the “seed” of the gospel, yet to dogmatize the belief that once having heard that one is wandering the earth in a semi-regenerate state with a libertarian free will is wild extra-biblical speculation at best. For a biblical example that pronounces the differences among us, consider when Paul was preaching the gospel to Lydia and “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14).  A libertarian would argue this passage placed Lydia in a pre-fall-like state where she had libertarian freedom to believe or reject Jesus.  But the passage plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond. There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts to change the heart) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65). Rather, when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled biblically. They will respond positively. Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call because they have an uncircumcised heart. But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) but rather, gladly assents to the gospel. The biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases where the Bible reveals God’s intent.

Remember, not even libertatians believe we naturally have libertarian freedom. If we did then we could theoretically believe the gospel apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. Yet I have not yet found one libertarian willing to admit this, for to do so would fall into the heresy of Pelagianism. No, the libertarian must acknowledge that, prior to grace, man's "freedom" is compatibilistic. In the end, Scripture defines freedom, not as libertarians do, but as the freedom from the bondage to sin, since we are slaves of sin until the Son sets us free (John 8; Rom 6). Biblical freedom is the freedom to do what is pleasing to God (John 8:34-36; Rom 6:15-23; 2 Cor 3:17) and this freedom from sin is granted in the redemptive work of Christ. Yet the Scripture nowhere says anything about the freedom to choose either contrary or apart from our desires.  We either desire and love Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace giving us a heart of flesh, not a result of nature itself (John 1:13; Rom 9:16). The real difference between the two views, then, is not really the nature of the will for we all can agree that apart from the Holy Spirit, the will acts according to the affections of its fallen nature in a compatibilist sense. The real difference rather is the nature of God’s grace in salvation (what it does for us). This brings us to the next criticism…

(2) Extra-Biblical Intuition: Without providing any biblical evidence whatsoever for the basis of libertarian freedom Walls and Dongell instead make their strongest assertions about why they believe this theory in statements such as “We believe it is … obviously true that responsibility requires libertarian freedom,” and it is their “judgment” that “the common sense view of freedom is libertarian freedom.” Also “…it seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us.” Right away we see there is an open admission here that the libertarian free will position derives its assumptions solely from a philosophical precommitment of what they call intuitive common knowledge. This means that one of the most the foundational doctrines which hermeneutically controls the way they read the entire Scripture is based purely in speculation and logical deduction with statements like “it seems” rather than from any biblical exegesis. If this were a smaller matter we might be able to overlook it but since this is the controlling factor in how we relate to God in all of Scripture it is a cause for no small alarm. This is baffling since libertarians make bold claims to believe in sola scriptura. You would think that if it were important to God that He would mention it at least once. A system based purely on extra-biblical assumptions makes their case really quite hard to prove. Failure to demonstrate a biblical basis for this belief means that libertarianism should be abandoned, that is, unless they are willing to continue foregoing the authority of the Scriptures in order to uphold their philosophy.

(3) Causeless Choice: Libertarians, of course, like to claim that we also base our compatiblism in philosophical assumptions but this assertion simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There are an endless number of Scriptures that affirm that our choice to believe or reject the gospel is done so of necessity because of our innermost affections and inclinations. For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testment prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is not very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing. Later to another group of those who refused to believe, Jesus shows us what the cause of our choices are when he replied,

"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin...If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you aredetermined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does...You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:34-47)

Jesus continually points to reasons or motives as the determining factor for believing and rejecting the gospel: they are “determined to kill me”, “their heart is far from me”, they “want to carry out their father’s desire” and they reject me because they “do not belong to God.” Libertarian causeless choice is, therefore, an idea foreign to Scripture and basically goes against all sound logic. If our choice to receive Christ is causeless, not arising of necessity from our affections or desire when we see God’s beauty and excellence, then it is made, as it were, out of thin air, for no other reason but that we chose, as if the person wills to choose something he doesn’t want. To give you a real life example of libertarian causeless choice, read the following excerpt from a recent conversation I had with a libertarian where I asked a simple question about why we believe the gospel. I asked,

“If the gospel is preached to two persons and they both receive equal (prevenient) grace, why is it that one man ultimately believes the gospel and not the other? What makes the two people to differ? Was it Jesus Christ that makes them to differ or something else? If both had the same prevenient grace it wasn’t Jesus that made the to differ, so obviously one had a natural advantage over the other.

He answered in classic libertarian fashion, “One heard and understood, one did not. One believed and one did not. That's the nature of free will. Our decisions are not DETERMINED by forces outside of our will. And that's why one man accepts and another rejects Christ.”

Lets take a closer look at his answer. He said that ‘one understood and one did not’ … but where did such understanding come from to begin with? Was this understanding itself derived from nature or from grace? In the libertarian scheme did God grant this understanding so that one believed? We are forced to conclude that He did not, for if He did this for everyone, then both persons would have the same understanding. So we must conclude that, to the libertarian, such spiritual understanding is entirely self-generated, apart from any work of God’s grace in us. Whatever differences there were between the two men, these differences were not derived from grace. Ultimately, it is a reliance on some innate ability in one man, which the other did not have. So we must ask, then, according to libertarianism, was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other? The only two alternatives left to us here are either that one person just happened to understand (‘just because’) by chance, or that one was already better equipped than the other (in his natural self) to respond positively to the gospel command. Neither of these possibilities is aligned with the teaching or intent of the gospel, which is by grace through and through.

Now, in his second answer to why one believed and not the other, He answered, “one believed and the other did not” But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked ‘why’ he believed. Our libertarian friend didn’t really answer the question as I asked it, but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy, since he believes that it was not his desires (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn’t want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.

But the answer faces the same difficult question as the first --- did one just happen to believe? My gospel says that only the humble, who recognize that they have no hope in themselves, will embrace Christ and, in like manner, the proud will despise and reject Him. Either sin and virtue, of necessity, precede our choice when Christ is put before us. It is the grace of God that makes us humble, not innate ability or chance. But the libertarian is unwilling to say it was only by God’s grace in Christ because he then would admit to God’s sovereign choice. Nor will he provide an answer that reveals a moral virtue in one person (humility) that the other (who was proud), did not naturally have. This would expose his belief in salvation by merit. But these two answers are the only possible conclusions. So if there is not of necessity any moral reasonor motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if faith is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is ludicrous.

(4) The Belief in Libertarian Free Will Destroys Moral Responsibility – Walls and Dongell make a strong case that our judicial system is based on the commonsense view of libertarian freedom since the lawyers often defend the degree of guilt of clients based on whether they were coerced, their upbringing, emotional state and the like. These kind of conditions indeed often make people less culpable if their inability made them so they could not have done otherwise. If criminals could have made different choices than they did, i.e. if they were coerced into making a bad choice, then we all agree they would not be as legally responsible for their crime. While it is true that coercion often plays a role in the legal degree of punishment, but this only scratches the surface of the matter. Consider the opposite that if criminals just chose to commit a crime but had no intent or motives for it at all then the lawyer would be forced to plead insanity for his client before the court. If the choice to commit a crime were not based and caused ultimately on a reason, desire or motive then he would have to be absolved from guilt because he would not be responsible for it. If one chose to murder someone simply because he chose to it would be a sign of sickness not responsibility. Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent. Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do?

Furthermore, inability usually does not diminish culpability in a moral decision. If a human were asked to fly and they could not due to their physical limitations, we could not justly blame them for their inability, but if someone were to borrow $100 million and squander it in a week of wild living in Vegas, his inability to repay would not alleviate his responsibility. Therefore, what we ought to do morally does not always imply that we can, and yet we remain culpable. God commands that we perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Our inability to do so morally does not take away our moral guilt because our inability is moral and intentional. We wanted to disobey and our desire was rebellion. In fact, Paul clearly shows that the intent of the divine legislation is to reveal sin, not to show that we have the moral ability to keep it (Rom. 3:20). In other words, it reveals that we are impotent to obey the law, stripping up of all hope from ourselves, so we can only throw ourselves on God’s mercy. We inherited Adam’s guilt and freely choose to continue in rebellion. Adam has federally represented all of us, and we agree with his choice every time we sin, so our inability to repay the debt to God does not alleviate us of responsibility. Can anyone claim we are not guilty of a crime by saying “sorry judge, Adam made me do it.” No, we ourselves are guilty when we choose to commit a crime.

(5) Scripture Incompatible with Libertarian Free Will There is simply no passage in Scripture where our wills are seen to be independent of God’s plan and our desires (libertarian freedom). The position is genuinely a philosophical construct. A failure to demonstrate a biblical basis for this belief again means that libertarian should be abandoned. In fact the Scripture shows just the opposite. God clearly says that it was He who foreordained the crucifixion but he also holds those who did it responsible (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). Judas’ betrayal was said to be according to Scripture (Acts 1:16; John 17:12), but God does not hold him any less responsible for it.

(6) Libertarian Freedom Would Make God Himself Not Responsible for His Choices. God always makes choices according to His holy nature. All members of the Trinity have acted in sinless perfection. God cannot even desire an unholy act, nor can He lie, for He would no longer be God if He did. In fact His choices are so wrapped up in His nature and essence that He could not do otherwise. But God’s freedom is the real freedom defined by the Bible -- a freedom from sin, not a freedom to do otherwise. God is free in the compatibilist sense in that He always acts according to His nature, never against it. God does not have ‘freedom’ to do what is contrary to His nature, so He is not free in the libertarian sense (in fact no one is). In a similar way, we all strive toward and look forward to the day when we will no longer be bound by sin. Our resurrection bodies will be free from all sin and death. This means there will be no libertarian freedom on the new earth because we will be compelled to choose good because that is what we will want by nature. Libertarians often call anyone’s life where we cannot chose otherwise either robotic or one where we cannot be held responsible for our choices. If true then this would have to apply to God and our future glory as well. Is God a robot because He cannot choose to be unholy?

(7) If all our choices are free from our own desire and free from the plan of God then they are based on chance. This means that God could be taken by surprise. A chance event is defined as one that does not have a sufficient cause that would make it utterly unpredictable, even to God. But we all know that chance is utterly inconsistent with God’s sovereignty, providence and foreknowledge of future events. This creates another fatal flaw in the philosophy of libertarian freedom.

(8) The Libertarian makes his philosophy of the will central to his interpretation while compatibilists make the covenant grace of God in Christ central. It is my contention that the libertarian error is not unlike the error of the ancients who believed that the Sun revolved around the earth. One’s starting point is always important because it reveals what is important to someone. To make libertarian free will the philosophical glasses through which one looks at the whole of Scripture (when the Text says nothing about such a belief) is a radical departure from honest biblical interpretation, by any standard. But the bias is so ingrained, it appears, that libertarian free will is simply accepted by many because they say it is 'obvious'. But our preference or feeling is not the basis of how we determine Scriptural truth, especially in such critical matters.. When we see the covenant in Christ as central, as the Scripture does, then we can ask, does God will the salvation of all people with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his chosen ones with a resolute will that gets the job accomplished? God's love for his people is intensive. His will never let them perish, just as a good parent would not let his child be hit by a car, even if he has to stop him against his will, so to speak. But instead of force, God changes the heart of stone to a heart of flesh that the child will himself desire to obey. The libertarian would have us believe that the child should have the 'right to choose' on his own whether to be hit by the car or not. But to leave a child to himself among danger is inviting certain death. Which is more loving I ask? God saves us because of what Christ does for us, not because some of us were more humble or smarter than others and thus drew on our natural resources and unregenerate affections to choose.

(9) In Why I am Not A Calvinist, Walls and Dongell assert that the purpose of their book is to assess whether there are persons “whom God has not chosen to bless.” Here they intend to create an invidious comparison by painting the Calvinist God as distinct from their own because, to the Calvinist, God chooses not to love all men in the same way. But even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that election is contingent on foreseen faith, then there is nothing in Arminian theology to prevent God from only creating those whom he foreknows would respond to the gospel. Since this obviously is not the case, where does that leave the love of God as defined by the Arminian and set in defamatory contrast to Calvinism? In the end God knows everything (is omniscient) and therefore, even in the libertarian scheme, prior to even creating the universe God knows the choices all persons will make before creating them, so why did He go ahead an create them? Libertarians cannot consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. It is obviously within His providence for this person to be lost for he could easily have chosen not to create them if He so desired. In the same way, if God foreknew who would be saved then how could we consistently preach that that God is trying to save every man? God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, so who would claim that He is trying to save more? Among the libertarians, Open Theists, have recognized this internal inconsistency and instead of recognizing that the compatibilist position was right all along they have plunged themselves into deeper darkness by fastening ignorance on God (since they claim God does not know the future).

Furthermore, Walls and Dongell are clinging to an unbiblical assumption that God is somehow obligated to those who are in active rebellion against Him. Our salvation is called merciful because we did not deserve it and so our surprise should not be that there are some that God has not chosen to bless redemptively, but rather, our surprise should be that he was wiling to save any.

(10) Libertarians complain that effectual grace forces people to do something against their will. If the elect will all be saved, they reason, then they must have no real choice in the matter. But compatibilists affirm the belief that we must personally exercise our own faith in order to be justified. God does not do the believing for us. Consider that a healthy infant who was just born must breath on his own. Consciously or unconsciously the baby wills to breath. No one else breathes for him. However, his/her lungs themselves were a gift of God, apart from his willing. Also he uses his own eyes to see, but the eyes themselves were are gift of God. Furthermore, the act of birth itself is not something the baby does by exercising its choice or will. The baby is completely passive in its birth - this is because life itself was the gift of God completely apart from our willing. ...And this is clearly the reason why Jesus uses this wonderful analogy of birth when speaking of regeneration (see John 3). The new birth is not spoken of in the imperative as something we should take upon ourselves to do, but something God does for us. We must be born again to see or enter the kingdom of heaven. ‘Spirit gives birth to spirit’. In other words we must first be regenerated if we are to believe and enter the kingdom. We love him only because He first loved us. No one says 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit. To say we can free (redeem) ourselves by utilizing our unregenerate, unspiritual will is to undermine the gospel. It is Christ who renews and quickens the will, the desires and affections. When God mercifully grants new life to a person, a heart of flesh, new spiritual eyes and ears and illumines their mind to understand, God does not violate their will for they gladly utilize these things that God gave them with their own will.
The analogy could likewise be extended to someone like Lazarus who Jesus raised from the dead. Lazarus did not try or use self-effort to come back to life. Jesus commanded life to enter him and it was so. Yet Lazarus opened his own eyes and sat up in his own grave. His being resurrected itself was the gift of God, unrelated to what Lazarus personal will was. Similarly, God's regenerative grace enters into us (the new birth). This is purely an act of God’s mercy to us since He is under obligation to save no one. Libertarians, in making this charge, tend to confuse coercion with necessity. (See my essay on the same).

(11) Libertarianism dismantles the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ purchased in our redemption, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. This grace is conditional and only when faith is contributed to the mix is it considered sufficient. Faith is seen as something that arises separately from Christ’s work rather than as a result of it. So to a libertarian, we could not properly thank God for our faith since it is the only thing that is alone self-generated. While all men have grace, so they say, grace is not what makes men to differ from one another. If something other than grace sets apart the elect from the non-elect then it is not grace alone (or Jesus alone) that saves.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

To help the reader understand compatibilism here is an analogy that just about anyone can understand. Consider a new mother, her infant and the approach of a madman with a dagger. Like most mothers, this new mother adores her baby so much that she would be willing to sacrifice her own life if it would save her child. But, in this instance, she faces a choice. A madman approaches her and holds out a dagger and orders her to sacrifice her baby. In fear she chooses to flee from him and, of course, refuses to kill her child. But the question, which seems ridiculous because the answer is so obvious, is why doesn’t she plunge the dagger into the child? She has the physical capacity to do so, right? She could easily plunge the knife into the child with her physical ability but she refuses, and in fact in incapable of doing so. Why? It is because her great affection for the child makes it morally impossible for her to carry out such an act under any circumstance. In the same way, we naturally (while unregenerate) refuse to plunge the dagger into the sin which we so love and join ourselves to Christ. Our disposition and affections determine the necessity of our choices.

John Frame once said in regard to the difference between Determinism & Fatalism: Determinism means that all events are rendered unavoidable by the cause, which include our choices. Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices.

We believe that apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit to change our disposition, to disarm our natural hostility and illumine our hearts and minds to the truth, we would always turn our affections away from Christ toward darkness (John 3:19, 20). We have the physical ability to say a prayer or walk an aisle, but our hearts are filled with hostility toward God and we naturally suppress the truth in unrighteousness as Paul asserts in his epistle to the Romans. Our inability is simply a matter of the affections and we chose accordingly. Some persons, when they see Christ immediately have affection for him and others despise Him. The question we must all ask is, what makes the two to differ? Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ who has disarmed our hostility, forgiven our sins and adopted us into His own family

Free Grace or Free Will

2011-12-08T21:44:00.000-06:00

John Hendryx Responds to Visitor Struggling with Free Will Vs. Free Grace

visitor: I am struggling with the Calvinism vs. Free Will debate. Why, when one "flees to Christ" as you say is there not the possibility of NOT fleeing to Christ. Is there not a choice involved here? Fleeing to Christ is not a work is it? Turning to Christ is not a work is it? Why is choosing to believe in Christ considered a work by so many Calvinists? When I believed in Christ I gave Him ALL the glory as I then understood that NOTHING I can do would satisfy God. ONLY what Christ did saves me! But I must choose to believe, trust, follow, Flee to Him! Where am I going wrong?

response: Thanks for writing with your excellent question. This hits directly at the crux of the matter. Salvation by grace alone in Christ alone was the very issue of the Reformation that Martin Luther battled the most with Erasmus and the Roman Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century.

What is this issue of the bondage of the will all about? It points to what the Bible says is the real condition of the natural man. If we set aside church traditions for a moment go through what the Bible asserts about fallen man it may be surprising to you. First we need to establish whether or not man has a free will, according to Scripture. But how do we do this?

The Text not only says that the natural man is a sinner, but that he does not have the Spirit of God. He is not born of the Spirit. Agreed? Jesus says, Flesh gives birth to flesh and the Spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:3,6) and "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.”" (John 6:63) & Paul says that “the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14). We do not receive things we think are foolish and that we do not understand. The natural man does not have the mind of Christ so even if someone preaches to him until he is blue in the face, he will not respond to the gospel unless God grants belief and repentance (see John 6:65 & 2 Tim 2:25, Eph 2:8). The Bible indeed declares that no one can believe without a preacher but this is not enough by itself …. the seed of the gospel that is cast forth from the preacher must be germinated, so to speak, by the Holy Spirit, if a person is to come to Christ. Paul explains how he knows some were chosen of God. He says, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess 1:4, 5) This is clear evidence the Spirit is necessary, not optional for a person to be made alive so he may come to Christ..without which man would remain naturally dead to the things of Christ.

The Holy Spirit is critical for salvation, so critical that without Him, no one would ever willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel, not one would come to Jesus Christ. Agreed? Or do you believe the Scripture teaches that a man can come to faith apart from the Holy Spirit? All true Christians affirm the necessity of the Holy Spirit. So from this very fact, we have established that man has no free will. Again, what is meant when we say no free will? We are not speaking of someone coercing us from the outside. No. It means that we are in bondage to a corruption of nature, out of which we cannot free ourselves BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT and hate God by nature (John 3:19). We cannot draw from our own resources to even lift a finger toward our own salvation. Jesus says in the Gospel of John to the Jews that only the Son can set them free, but they are now children of the Devil the father of lies, who lies because it is in his nature. In Romans 6 it reads that natural men are slaves to sin, and elsewhere that that Satan has taken men captive to do his will. If Christ is to set us free then it means we were not free and in bondage.

So it is important to ask, can a person, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, believe the gospel? Does the natural person have the capacity to understand spiritual things? According to the above passages the answer is clearly no. 'No one says “Jesus is Lord” apart from the Holy Spirit.' So the unbeliever is void of the Spirit which is another way of saying that he has no free will. He may make voluntary choices but they are choices of necessity. In other words, he necessarily chooses sin, apart from grace. Nothing he does springs from a heart that loves God. His condition, if left to himself, is hopeless. God must intervene to illumine his mind, open blind eyes, unplug deaf ears, disarm his natural hostility, change our disposition and turn our heart of stone to a heart of flesh.

So if we can agree that a man will not come to Christ apart from the Holy Spirit, then we also agree and have established that the natural man has no free will. God must act if we are to do anything toward our redemption (See John 1:13).

Now that we have established this, lets take the other part of your great question.

>>>>Why, when one "flees to Christ" as you say is there not the possibility of NOT fleeing to Christ. Is there not a choice involved here? Fleeing to Christ is not a work is it? Turning to Christ is not a work is it? Why is choosing to believe in Christ considered a work by so many Calvinists?

Fleeing to Christ only becomes a work when we think we did this apart from God’s grace. If faith is a product of our unregenerate human nature then we could boast like this:

"Thank you Lord I am not like other men who do not have faith. When you granted grace to all men, others did not make use of it, BUT I DID."

Apart from grace, what makes them to differ from other men then was their native ability to have faith. But the Scripture says the grace of God makes us differ from others, not something we had by nature that our neighbor did not. When we arrive in God's presence we will not say, "Thank you God for everything, except my faith ... I am here because I had the wisdom to believe." No, we will say thank you Lord for your mercy that I even had the faith to believe. You deserve all the glory as I would have never come on my own.

Even when you think that the assistance of grace depends on your own humility and that it was not grace itself that made you humble then you no longer believe in 'grace alone' but that you came to Christ due to your own great humility. You are establishing a religion of grace PLUS your merit or wisdom or virtue, not Jesus alone. But when we recognize our faith in Christ is due to the fact that God has changed our heart so that we may see and understand his beauty and excellence, then we give all glory to God for all our salvation. Can you thank God for your faith? or is this the one thing that you can boast of contributing to the price of your salvation?

If all men have equal grace, as you seem to be suggesting, an important question to ask is why does one man believe the gospel and not another? Is one smarter, or have more natural sensitivity than others to spiritual things? Jesus says, My sheep hear my voice but some “do not believe BECAUSE [they] are not his sheep.” He does not say they are not his sheep because they do not believe (See John 10). So he reveals that the nature of the person determines the choice they will make. An unregenerate man will not exercise faith in a holy God. Jesus says a bad tree does not bear good fruit … but MAKE the tree good and its fruit will be good. …. The seed of the gospel which falls on our soil … Is this soil good by NATURE or by grace? God must first plow up the fallow ground of our hearts. To this Jesus says, "...every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." - Matt 15:13. That is why Jeremiah says that he will turn our heart of stone to a heart of flesh THAT we might obey. No one believes or obeys while his heart is still stone. A blind man cannot see unless given new eyes. Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not help him see. Nor will people respond to the word of God apart form the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The Scripture testifies that, "It is not the man who wills or runs but God who has mercy (Rom 9:16) John 1:13 says it is not the will of man that causes us to believe but the new birth.

If God extends His grace to all men, then why do some reject him? Is it grace that makes men to differ from one another, not some good will God see in us.

Some important verses to contemplate are:

Romans 8:30 which says, “those who were called were justified” According to this verse, I ask you, how many of those God called were justified? The answer to this question is why no one resists God’s call.

And Jesus himself said, “ALL that the Father gives to me WILL come to me…”(John 6:37) Not some, Jesus says, but ALL that God the Father gives the SON will believe on him. We believe that grace is invincible because this is what the Bible teaches … and without which no man would willingly come. When your child runs out in the street and a car is coming, do you wait to see what he will do with his free will, or do you run to scoop him out of danger. Love doesn't just wring hands and hope but it gets the job done and, in God's case saves the ones He came for. (See John 6:39). Jesus says he will lose NONE OF ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM - John 6:39

Total Depravity

2011-12-03T09:31:00.000-06:00

Douglas Wilson

Pride and Prejudice

Before I came to understand and embrace the Biblical doctrine of resurrecting grace, I was kept away by a combination of factors. One reason, of course, was my own prejudices and ignorance. Certain truths tend to rub our theological fur the wrong way, and they have had that tendency since at least the time of Paul (Rom. 9:19). But there was another reason. I had trouble because my ignorance and prejudices were sometimes reinforced by how I heard these issues presented. Consequently, I thought I understood what in fact I did not.

I write on one such topic, therefore, with some trepidation. I have no desire to mislead fellow Christians on such an important issue; our subject is the resurrection to eternal life, therefore, we must begin the discussion within the framework set by the Word of God.

Biblical Terminology

What is the condition of man prior to regeneration? How may we best describe him? The best place to start is with the Biblical description and the Biblical terms. When the Lord showed the prophet Ezekiel the valley of dry bones, He said, "`Son of man, can these bones live?' So I answered, `O Lord God, You know.' Again He said to me, `Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!' Thus says the Lord God to these bones: `Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live'" (Ezek. 37:3-5).

Before regeneration, we are nothing but dry bones. Unregenerate man is dead in his transgression and sin (Eph. 2:1-2; Col. 23). He is not sick, he is not ailing; he is dead. Now to say that he is dead in this respect is not to assert that he is physically dead, or dead in every aspect of his being. It simply means that he is dead with regard to spiritual things. He has no connection with the life of the Spirit,which comes only as a gift from God. Because man is dead, he must be born again (John 3:5-7). Because he is dead in sin, he is hostile to God and will not submit to His laws. Even further, he cannot submit to His laws (Rom. 8:7-8). The natural man is incapable of understanding spiritual things, and since the gospel is in the front rank of spiritual things which require spiritual understanding, this means the natural man has no ability to comprehend the gospel ( I Cor. 2:14).

Someone may object here and say that the gospel was designed for unregenerate men; how can we say that unregenerate men cannot understand it? In reply, I agree that the gospel was designed for unregenerate men, but I deny that it was intended to function apart from the resurrection given by the Spirit of God. Unless regeneration occurs, the gospel, like all spiritual things, remains gibberish to the natural man. As Paul says in I Corinthians 1:18, "...the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (also see II Cor. 2:15 and 4:3). Note what is foolish to him; it is the message of the cross.

Because man is in this condition, he cannot come to Christ unless he is drawn by the Father (John 6:44,65), by means of the Spirit (John 3:5-8). This means that a Biblical evangelist must preach, like Ezekiel, in a graveyard. He is not preaching in a hospital ward, trying to get the patients to take the medicine. Those who preach the gospel are not recruiters; they are heralds and instruments of a God-given resurrection. In accomplishing this, the dead men do not cooperate in their resurrection. The dead men have something they must do (repent and believe), but they do not do it until they are given life.

Another picture used by the Scripture to communicate this truth is the picture of slavery. Just as a dead man is not free to walk about, so a slave is not free to walk off. Jesus teaches us that everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Paul reminds the Roman Christians that they were at one timeslaves to sin and free from the control of righteousness (Rom. 6:20). In Titus 3:3, he says that we were all at one time foolish and slaves to various passions. Unlike physical slavery, it is impossible to escape from this bondage since the slavemaster is our own twisted nature -- our own passions and lusts. Wherever we go, there we are.

Theological Terminology

In discussions such as this, extra-Biblical theological terminology is both a blessing and a hindrance. It is a blessing because it enables us to pin down our definitions with better precision. This is necessary because there are many evangelical Christians who are not willing to submit to certain truths of Scripture, but they are constrained to agree with the phrases of Scripture. So they would agree, for example, that man is dead in his sins because Ephesians says so. But they would then hasten to add that "dead" doesn't mean dead and that we mustn't press such figures of speech too far. As such a discussion progresses, the defender of Biblical truth is constrained to use other words and phrases that will communicate the Scriptural concept.

The hindrance lies in the fact that such extra-Biblical phrases are not inspired and may not always communicate effectively. For example, the doctrine of the total depravity of man sounds like we are asserting the absolute depravity of man, i.e. that man is as bad as he could possibly be. This is quite obviously false. Man is constrained and held back from such an absolute depravity by the common grace of God.

The doctrine of total depravity is this: man is totally unable to contribute to his own salvation in any way, because he is dead in his sins. For example, the resurrection of Lazarus was not a joint effort between Christ and Lazarus. Lazarus came forth because he was raised, not in order to be raised.

What Denial Involves

The denial of man's total inability will ultimately undermine our faith in the necessity of the new birth and the evangelical proclamation. How so?

Scripture teaches us that faith is pleasing to God. It also teaches us that we are to live our Christian lives the same way we began our Christian lives (Gal. 3:1-6; Col. 2:6). Now if unregenerate men, on their own, are capable of saving faith, without having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, then they should be able to continue to exercise that same kind of faith, after they are saved, without any help from the Spirit of God.

If a man can become a believer on his own, then he can continue to believe on his own. And if he can continue to believe on his own, then what did regeneration accomplish? The Bible teaches us that the Christian life begins with faith, continues in faith, and concludes in faith (Romans 1:17). The foundation of all godliness is faith, and a denial of man's total inability means that unbelievers are capable of laying that foundation for all godliness on their own. Even if one argues that the Holy Spirit regenerates a man after he believes, such a regeneration is superfluous. What is it for? What does it do? In this view, it most certainly does not enable the man to believe or trust God. It hardly does honor to the resurrecting Spirit to say that His job is to tag along.

The apostle Paul rebuked the Galatians when they forgot that they began by hearing with faith and then sought to finish the job by human effort. In considering his response to that error, I doubt he would have thought much of the confusion that reverses the order -- beginning by human effort and then finishing by the Spirit.

Put bluntly, it amounts to this: If I am saved, sanctified, and glorified through faith (which the Bible teaches), and faith is possible apart from regeneration (which a denial of total inability asserts), then salvation, sanctification, and glorification are possible without regeneration. And that reasoning undermines the necessity of the everlasting and eternal gospel.

Carts and Horses

God gives eyes, and then we see. God gives life, and then we live. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6).

Contrast this Biblical way of thinking with the alternative. I saw, and so God gave me eyes. I came alive, and so God gave me a resurrection. Light came forth from my heart, so God said, "Let there be light." This is obviously incorrect; it is God, Paul says, who commanded light to come out of darkness. It isGod who commanded that it shine in our hearts.

Notice the comparison in this passage between the gift of new life and the creation of the material universe. It bears mentioning that the material creation was ex nihilo -- from nothing. Paul asserts the same about the new creation; it too is from nothing.

The creation does not help the Creator out in the work of creation; the Creator acts unilaterally. The dilemma for evangelicals who want to deny total inability is this: either God must begin the resurrecting work of salvation because unsaved men are dead, or unsaved men are capable of beginning the process of their salvation on their own by means of saving faith. If the former, then we say welcome and shake hands. If the latter, then it follows that unsaved men can finish what they began, and we are confronted with a false gospel. In other words, there is no consistent stopping place between Reformed theology on the one hand, and a Pelagian theology on the other. Of course, plenty of evangelicals do not wind up in one camp or the other, but that is to be considered a triumph of inconsistency.

Conclusion

The Bible does not permit us to boast in our salvation at all: "You are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God -- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption -- that, as it is written, `He who glories, let him glory in the Lord'" (I Corinthians 1:30-31).

If a man has been raised from the dead, there is much cause for rejoicing; there is no cause for pride. And when all human boasting is removed, what remains? Nothing of ours, but there is an infinite ocean of grace. My earnest hope and prayer is that more and more Christians will set out on that ocean, until there is no land in sight.

Why Witness if God is Sovereign?

2011-11-26T20:50:00.001-06:00

At the 2009 Ligonier conference entitled the Holiness of God. The following question was asked at the 3rd Q&A of the conference: “What makes a Calvinistic preacher get out of bed in the morning when he knows that nothing he can do will effect the outcome of his work?”

This is DA Carson’s response:

"The same God who ordained the elect ordained the means and ordained the prayer warriors. My father was a church planter in French Canada. It was during hard years when a large church had 35 to 40 people. Opposition was severe enough, on occasion, where we kids were beaten up because we were ‘damn protestants.’ Baptist ministers in French Canada spent a total of 8 years in prison from ’52 to ’53…. Then the Belgium Congo erupted into the Civil War that would make it the country of Zaire and it became very dangerous to be there….at the time many American missionaries in the Congo came back to the US and look for another part of the world to go to and a few of them went up to French Canada because at least we spoke French….People like my dad were busy rejoicing because we were going to get more help…not one of them (the former Congan missionaries) lasted more than 6 months in French Canada…not one! By this time I was in my teens and in high school so I knew a lot about just about everything. And I asked my dad, ‘How come none of them had the courage, stamina, godliness and perseverance to stick it out and do a good job under these circumstances?’

My father tried to reason with me, he was a most reasonable man..unlike his son. He said ‘You’ve got to understand that they have served in parts of the world where they have seen a lot of fruit and they have seen a lot of conversions and built schools and hospitals and they just can’t imagine seeing a place in the world where there is very little fruit. So they come here and see nothing so they conclude that God doesn’t want them here and that they have misread his providential guidance"

So I said something that I regret to this day (Dr. Carson then tries to fight back tears) ‘Then why don’t you go somewhere and make your life more fruitful?’ He wheeled on me and said, ‘Because I believe that God has many people in this place’ and he walked out of the room.

Don’t you see that’s exactly the encouragement that God gave the apostle Paul. Preach on Paul I have many people in this place! It is election that grounds perseverance other wise all it is…is style and mechanics.”

Posted by Charlie King

20 Resolutions On The Use Of The Tongue

2011-11-16T21:55:00.005-06:00

Here are twenty resolutions on the use of the tongue to which James' letter gives rise:

1) Resolved: To ask God for wisdom to speak and to do so with a single mind. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him in faith with no doubting. . . . For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything . . . he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (James 1:5–8).

2) Resolved: To boast only in my exaltation in Christ or my humiliation in the world. “Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away” (James 1:9–10).

3) Resolved: To set a watch over my mouth. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13).

4) Resolved: To be constantly quick to hear, slow to speak. “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19).

5) Resolved: To learn the gospel way of speaking to the poor and the rich. “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ while you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there,’ or, ‘Sit down at my feet,’ have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:1–4).

6) Resolved: To speak in the consciousness of the final judgment. “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty” (James 2:12).

7) Resolved: To never stand on anyone’s face with words that demean, despise, or cause despair. “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:15–16).

8) Resolved: To never claim a reality I do not experience. “If you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth” (James 3:14).

9) Resolved: To resist quarrelsome words as marks of a bad heart. “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?” (James 4:1).

10) Resolved: To never speak evil of another. “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge” (James 4:11).

11) Resolved: To never boast in what I will accomplish. “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit’—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes” (James 4:13).

12) Resolved: To always speak as one who is subject to the providences of God. “Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that’” (James 4:15).

13) Resolved: To never grumble, knowing that the Judge is at the door. “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9).

14) Resolved: To never allow anything but total integrity in my speech. “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation” (James 5:12).

15) Resolved: To speak to God in prayer whenever I suffer. “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray” (James 5:13).

16) Resolved: To sing praises to God whenever I am cheerful. “Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise” (James 5:13).

17) Resolved: To ask for the prayers of others when I am sick. “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14).

18) Resolved: To confess it whenever I have failed.... . confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16).

19) Resolved: To pray for one another when I am together with others in need. “Pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

20) Resolved: To speak words of restoration when I see another wander. “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19–20).

By Sinclair Ferguson